On Thursday, 21 May 2015 at 13:12:36 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
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.
Not more, but it will be worst, because it could change behaviour
of program without error message
