Proposal for a set handling library

[Martin Nowak]

On 01/02/2014 09:09 AM, Raphaël Jakse wrote:
> I'm going to add this.
> Two questions:
>   - By default, should set be typed or untyped?
>     I would go for typed set, but what about people's expectations?
>   - What is preferable: first version or second version of the proposed
> set factory function? (imho both cannot co-exist because of sets of
> arrays handling)
>      * The first version allows creation of a set from a array. That is
> already possible with the constructor, but then you have to pass the
> type template, this is not beautiful.
>      * The second version is more pretty. But then, we'll need a
> setFromArray function which makes a set from a list.
>     I prefer the second option, but then, set([1, 2, 3, 4]) would make a
> set containing on element: an array of four ints. Could this be misleading?

Use a typesafe variadic function.

http://dlang.org/function.html#variadic
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11657