DIP10005: Dependency-Carrying Declarations is now available for community feedback

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 12/14/2016 12:07 PM, David Gileadi wrote:
> The above rule doesn't cover non-template function declarations like the
> `process` example in the DIP, however. Are they an important enough use
> case to justify new syntax?

I suspect 90% of all uses will be straight definitions of template 
functions or template structs/classes. So by that estimate we should be 
in good shape.

However, looking inside the definition in order to look up names in its 
declarations breaks the rule of least astonishment. Making the import 
part of the syntactical unit of the declaration seems to be the path of 
least resistance.


Andrei