On Sunday, 2 March 2014 at 11:47:39 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:
On Sunday, 2 March 2014 at 10:05:05 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
There is nothing wrong about not using templates. Almost any
compile-time design can be moved to run-time and expressed in
more common OOP form. And using tool you have mastery of is
usually more beneficial in practice than following the hype.
Yes DB, we can soldier on happily, but it would not do any harm
to understand templates.
The documentation examples quickly make your eyes glaze over,
looking at the code in Phobos is doubtless instructive, but you
can wade through a lot of that without finding what you want.
Also I discovered an interesting fact today. the word 'mixin'
does not appear in the language reference Templates section of
dlang.org.
It should be used in at least one example. I just discovered by
trial and error that I could use 'mixin' in Templates (as
opposed to Template Mixins), and when you know that it seems
likely that you can accomplish lots of stuff you couldn't
before.
While I'm here, has anyone discovered a way to fudge a
constructor super(..) call in a mixin template that's included
in a class constructor. Since the mixin template is evaluated
in the scope of the constructor, it seems like it should be OK.
I'm sure I'll get there in time ;=)
Steve
This is quite a nice read on D templates:
http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/templates.html
