On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:01:20 -0400, Walter Bright
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/10/2014 11:54 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
BTW, this escaped my view the first time reading your post, but I am NOT
proposing a string *class*.
Right, but here I used the term "class" to be more generic as in being a
user defined type, i.e. struct or class. I should have been more clear.
Then I don't understand your point. What strings are already is a
user-defined type, but with horrible enforcement. i.e. things that
shouldn't be allowed are only disallowed if you opt-in using phobos'
template constraints.
-Steve
