On Thu, 21 May 2015 08:54:54 -0400 Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/15 2:35 AM, Daniel Kozák via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > > > > On Wed, 20 May 2015 17:23:05 -0700 > > Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn > > <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote: > > > >> On 05/20/2015 04:10 PM, Mike Parker wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 13:46:22 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote: > >>>> DOC say `may not have` not `must not have` ;-) > >>>> > >>> > >>> OK, if that's the intent, it needs to be reworded. As it stands, > >>> it looks more like it's saying specialization is not permissible, > >>> rather than what "might" be possible. > >> > >> That's the only meaning that I get: The doc means "must not". Yet, > >> as you've shown, the behavior does not match the doc. > >> > >> Ali > >> > > 1.) we could fix just doc - easiest, but inconsistent > > Before doing this, we have to understand what works and what doesn't. > It's not clear to me. > > > 2.) remove implicit deduction even for fun(T:char)(T c) and all > > other specialization - code breakage so imho not good > > I don't think this is possible, this would break lots of existing > code. > > > 3.) fix doc and allow even fun(T:T*)(T* p) - same as 2 > > I agree with this fix. I don't understand why specialization should > disqualify IFTI. Can someone explain this rationale besides "because > the docs say so"? > But this will break more code than 2. So it is impossible to fix it.
