On Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 17:30:16 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
On 2/27/13, deadalnix <[email protected]> wrote:
That is fallacy.
void func(T...)(T args) { }
int foo() { return 1; }
float bar() { return 2.0; }
void main()
{
func(foo, bar); // ???
}
What will this do? If address-of on functions is banned then
this must
pass functions by default, and not their return types. Which is
a
complete change to what it does now.
Yes it is.
So now you have to carefully inspect every function call
because you
don't know whether you're passing a pointer to a function or
you're
invoking the function and passing the return type.
This ambiguity is what the DIP intend to solve. Here foo can
refers to different entity types depending on the context. When
you do &foo, you refers to function in the C meaning of the term,
when you do foo, you refers to function call.
How on earth does this simplify anything and justify code
breakage?
It remove an entity type from the language, so remove an entire
line and column in the feature matrix, so it simplify its
definition, its implementation and get rid of a whole class of
corner cases. It reduces the number of cases you have to account
for in generic code as well. It remove ambiguities that currently
exists on the usage of unary & operator. It makes D more friendly
for functional style of code.
