On Saturday, 26 February 2022 at 12:39:51 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
Considering that `put` is quite typically implemented as a
template, I don't think that would be possible in general.
That is what I found as well, for example, the implementation of
`put` from `Appender` and `RefAppender`, thus the algorithm fails
to detect the `put` methods.
The question is, do you really need that? Your
`BufferedOutputRange` can test the underlying range using
`isOutputRange` in its own implementation of `put`, where the
type of element is known, i.e. to test whether it can
bulk-write a slice (or a range of) elements or has to make
per-element calls to `put`.
This is exactly what I was doing, having the user pass in the
element type themselves, and then the BufferedOutputRange check
for both `isOutputRange!(ORangeT, ElemT)` and
`is(typeof(ORangeT.init.put([ ElemT.init ])))`. In short,
`isOutputRange` has many ways to be satisfied,
(https://dlang.org/phobos/std_range_primitives.html#.put), but I
want to restrict things further to only output streams that can
do a bulk put.
Thanks for you advice. While automatic detection would be a nice
convenience, it's not a deal breaker and it's also not
unreasonable to expect the caller to know the element type they
are inserting either.
