On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:56:12PM -0700, Walter Bright wrote: > On 8/27/2013 12:47 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > >On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 21:33:06 =?UTF-8?B?Ikx1w61z?=.Marques > ><[email protected]>@puremagic.com wrote: > >>On Tuesday, 27 August 2013 at 11:09:01 UTC, bearophile wrote: > >>>Do you have some use cases for this? > >> > >>No, not at the moment. I was just wondering if there was a reason > >>for what seemed an arbitrary difference between template > >>parameters and normal parameters. > > No reason. It simply never occurred to anyone. I've never heard of > anyone wanting this in all my years of C, C++, and D.
TBH I've never heard of anyone wanting normal (non-template) parameters to default to another parameter either. D is the first language I know that has such a feature. > >Not that I'm aware of. I'd file a bug (or at least an enhancement > >request) on it on the grounds we should be consistent unless there's > >a good reason not to be, and I'm not aware of any reason for this > >particular inconsistency (though honestly, I wouldn't have expected > >it to work in either case - if it can, great, but I would have just > >assumed that it wouldn't). > > I'd reject an enhancement request for this unless someone could > demonstrate significant utility for it. What was the original rationale for normal parameters to be able to default to another parameter? T -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? -- Michael Beibl
