On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 10:59:24 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 16:48:45 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
There are limitations this proposal has in comparison to my
original one. These limitations might of course be harmless
and play no role in practice, but on the other hand, they may,
so I think it's good to list them here.
One concern I had with your proposal was that it refers to a
symbol before it's available.
scope!haystack(string) findSubstring(scope(string) haystack,
scope(string) needle)
C++11 had similar issues and they solved it by introducing
trailing return types.
ex:
"template<class T>
auto mul(T a, T b) -> decltype(a*b)"
Personally I would prefer not to go down that lane and DIP69
avoids that problem.
For D, this wouldn't be necessary, because parsing and semantic
analysis are strictly separated. The owners would only have to be
evaluated very late during the semantic phase.
But let's see how DIP69 works out...
