2013/11/20 Jakob Ovrum <[email protected]>
>
> I was not sure that the fun!int is legitimate usage.
>>
>
> I also ask this question. I think it may prove useful, and code in the
> wild might be relying on it.
One of the known issue is, that the specified type parameters may not match
exactly to the function parameters position.
You can make a partially specialized lambda like follows.
X!((int a, b) => a + b)
Then, inside X(alias fun), fun!long means instantiate (int a, long b){
return a + b; }.
And of course, fun!(int, int) will be invalid.
So, specifying type parameter for the template lambda will make the
template code unreliable.
I think it is not good feature in general.
Kenji Hara
