On 5/11/22 11:27, templatedperson wrote:
> I don't know if this counts as a feature, but reading the standard
> library documentation was especially difficult. There are a ton of
> `auto`s everywhere and function signatures are hard to read because of
> that. I got used to confusing function signatures in a week or two, but
> it made me consider not using D.
I agree with readability problems. And although you likely know why
there are 'auto's everywhere in the standard library, I want to touch on
that for others who may not know.
Although templates are great, they bring naming problems:
- Some names are overly complex and expose implementation details.
- Some names are unmentionable because the implementation chose to make
the return type a nested struct.
import std.range;
import std.algorithm;
struct MyStruct {
}
void main() {
auto arr = [ MyStruct() ];
auto r = arr.map!(o => o).cycle;
pragma(msg, typeof(r));
}
The type of the range object 'r' happens to be the scary
Cycle!(MapResult!(__lambda2, MyStruct[])).
But make a change e.g. by adding .enumerate to the expression
auto r = arr.map!(o => o).enumerate.cycle;
and now the type is very different (and deceptively simpler!):
Cycle!(Result)
So, there is nothing else to do in current D but to have 'auto' return
types.
Ali
