Robert Jacques wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:38:33 -0400, Leandro Lucarella <[email protected]>
wrote:
Yes, D support for tuples is way far from ideal.
How so? I think this is merely the difference between a library type in
a flexible language and a built-in type in an inflexible language. I
mean the example was essentially:
In D:
Apple a
Apple b
Orange c
assert(a != c); // Error: incompatible types Apple and Orange
In SOL:
Apple a
Apple b
Apple c
assert(a != c); // ok, both a and c are apples.
Now, if SOL allowed tuples to do things you can't do today in D, like
assign a tuple to a struct with the same signature, then this might be a
point. But that wasn't the example given.
I also don't understand all the argument about structural vs. name
equivalence.
Andrei
