On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 20:14:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
There's some experience in various libraries with both
approaches. Which would you prefer?
Well, I think we should recognize that they're the same thing but
with different names. I don't have a strong preference for
either, but I think the opCall approach might invite questions
like "why is T t; different from auto t = T(); with this
collection type?".
The current container library's `make` function has a neat
feature (well, I'm biased here) where the element type doesn't
have to be specified when construction arguments are provided:
auto arr = make!Array(1, 2, 3); // element type inferred to be
`int`
auto arr = make!Array([42]); // Also for range construction
Naturally this doesn't work with nullary construction, but I
think it's worth mentioning because this is not nearly as
practical with static member functions. Of course the current
model is not usable as-is because `make` uses an ugly hack when
"making" empty struct containers.
