On Friday, 17 January 2014 at 01:12:04 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
Hello everyone! It's been a long time since I last posted here,
I've been away from all things D, only being able to take an
occasional peek from time to time. It's so good to be back. I'm
now finding a bit of time to commit to learn D, more relearn as
it would seem.
I've started my rediscoveries with exploring of concurrency,
parallelism, threading in D, and after some time I found myself
thinking "I need a unique encapsulator". Don't ask why, I may
not even be able to answer it in a month. But that helped me
solve some problems before in C++, so I thought why not try it
here? In a couple of page views I came upon std.typecons and
its Unique type. And I thought "why that is exactly what I
want!". And it was, too. But after taking a closer look at its
general implementation I just couldn't help myself but think
"well, it seems it was done in a hurry, never finished, left as
it was because this of that and whatnot". I mean, those sparse
comments, things like "doesn't work yet", etc... I thought
well, since I'm learning the language again, why not make it an
exercise and fill those blanks? It'd certainly help me, because
it would improve the abstraction I'm using, and because it's a
learning experience.
So, here's what I came up with for now:
http://codepad.org/S4TfIdxc
Granted, not a complete implementation, keeping not very far
from the original. But right now I think it's a good time to
ask you guys what do you think? Where have I went wrong, what
did I do incorrectly, what potential issues can you spot in
this? I mean, I'm not asking about using opDot(), which, as I
understand it, could be going away anytime now. At least I
think I managed to fill in most of the "blanks" of the current
implementation while keeping (almost?) to the same interface.
Improving Phobos code by filling in the blanks is usually a good
idea and a good learning experience as well.
Changing an interface in Phobos is a big deal and should be
thoroughly justified. Does it break backwards compatibility? Why
is it necessary?
(btw moving to .learn is not possible, unfortunately)
