Interfaces, traits, concepts, and my idea for a DIP

[Roland Hadinger via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 12:49:17 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> So... instead of having traits / concepts, what I wanted from D 
> is to be able to do this:
>
> struct MyRange: isInputRange { ... }

+1

> or
>
> struct MyRange: static isInputRange { ... } // that way classes 
> could do this too

What about this instead:

     @satisfies(isInputRange) struct MyRange { ... }

which is not as terse, but maybe less confusing, because 
intuitively ':' could be mistaken to mean 'extends'.

'static' has too many meanings already for my taste. I really 
don't like it when frequently used keywords are reused to mean 
different things in slightly different places.