On 02/03/2011 01:17 PM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
Why the reluctance to use template constraints? They're so flexible! :)
I cannot stand the "is()" idiom/syntax ;-) Dunno why. Would happily get rid of
it in favor of type-classes (built eg as an extension to current interfaces).
For instance, instead of:
void func (T) (T t)
if (is(someConstraint1) && is(someConstraint2))
{
...
}
use:
void func (SomeTypeClass T) (T t)
{
...
}
For instance (untested):
void func (T) (T t)
if (isInputRange(T) && is(ElementType!T == E))
-->
void func (InputRange!E T) (T t)
where InputRange is a (templated) interface / type-class.
Type-class checks on /type/ /template/ parameters (as opposed to type checks on
regular value parameters) would be performed structurally (as opposed to
nominally). D knows how to do this, since that's what it needs to perform when
checking is() constraints.
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
