On 10/14/15 15:32, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Wednesday, 14 October 2015 at 12:42:23 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote: >> On 10/14/15 10:26, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote: >>> On Monday, 28 September 2015 at 20:25:21 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: >>>> I've mentioned this many times before: template constraints are like >>>> unittest blocks with asserts in D: great that they're built-in easy to >>>> use. But when they fail, there's no help in figuring out why. >>>> >>>> [...] >>> >>> Huh, I thought this'd get more interest. I guess I have weird priorities! :P >> >> No, it's probably just that the people interested in this would prefer a >> /proper/ solution, hence don't consider ad hoc hacks to be cost effective, >> but actually counterproductive. > > There can't be a "proper" solution without a language change, which is > unlikely.
Yes, I'm just pointing out that the lack of discussion is not necessarily caused by the lack of interest and that the subject is not a low priority one. When a /proper/ solution is available (ie `possible`, even if not `likely`), discussing partial solutions (aka hacks) that have a significant cost will (rightly) be seen as counterproductive. Given the microscopic size of the D community it only takes a few people to reach that conclusion to result in ~zero constructive feedback. IOW it's not a "weird priorities" issue; it's a pragmatic pro-status-quo-choice issue. Another example of this kind would be the ownership/lifetime approach. Of the three options: [A] `ignoring it by-design` (C-like), [B] `dealing with only a subset`, and [C] `handling it properly`, the middle [B] option is the worst one. This leads to very little serious feedback to [B] proposals, and even less to [C] (since it "won't happen"). That doesn't change the reality that the only viable alternatives are either [A] or [C], because [B] has a cost comparable (if not ultimately even higher than) [C], but does not have [C]'s benefit (safety). IOW "feedback amount" can not be used as a proxy for "interest", and there often is no meaningful feedback->result correlation. There are too many other (meta) factors involved. artur
