On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 at 17:30:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
quoted lambdas are indeed shorter, but the issue with them is
that "a<b" instantiates a different template than "a < b",
whereas the lambda does not.
In fact, that is why we added shorthand lambdas to the
language. Note that in this case, it's just wasted code space
and not a real issue. but for example, RedBlackTree!(int, "a <
b") is not compatible with RedBlackTree!(int, "a<b"), even
though they are identical.
I'm not saying we shouldn't allow string lambdas, just that we
shouldn't encourage them as "proper" D code.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work at all for lambdas.
RedBlackTree!(int, (a, b) => a < b) tree1;
RedBlackTree!(int, (a, b) => a < b) tree2;
//Fails
assert(is(typeof(tree1) == typeof(tree2)));
