Something that was coming to mind a while back was that classes
can include interfaces while structs cannot. I can understand
easily why this wouldn't work being much lower level compared to
how classes are (And the vast varying of parameters and return
types).
But could the notation be allowed for more documentation
purposes? Or more for contract debugging? Course it would only
work with templates since that's how the constraints work...
Example:
struct something : isForwardRange
{}
I would think the equivalent would be a simple conversion to a
unittest code:
struct something{}
unittest {
assert(isForwardRange(something), "Fails to satisfy
'isForwardRange' template!");
}
Now this is just a thrown out thought/idea, but curiously I
don't think it would change much semantically... would it?
