On 12/3/15 9:40 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/03/2015 09:37 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/3/15 9:20 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/03/2015 08:59 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/3/15 8:01 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/03/2015 05:59 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
alias stableLinearXxx = linearStableXxx;
Doesn't scale. -- Andrei
To what? How many nested namespaces are you planning?
Many functions, not many namespaces. One declaration per function is
fail. -- Andrei
It seems worse with namespaces:
1. a linear namespace
2. a sub namespace for linear.stable
3. a function definition for linear.stable.foo
4. a stable namespace
5. a sub namespace for stable.linear
6. an alias (I'm assuming you're not repeating the function definition
here) for stable.linear.foo to linear.stable.foo
Perhaps my strawman isn't what you were thinking, let me know. It
appears to me that you will need more machinery for namespaces.
I don't get your point. Mine is there are many methods and few named
scopes aka namespaces. So I'm okay to scale declarations linearly with
number of named scopes but not with number of methods. -- Andrei
I think I see, all you need is a way to generate the aliases that will
be both linear and stable. I can think of nasty ways to do this with
opDispatch.
FWIW, I don't believe this complexity of API is worth it. It may be you
have all this wonderful mechanisms to specify exactly the runtime
requirements for your algorithms -- and nobody uses it because they
either a) have a specific container in mind, or b) don't care to
constrain the container type being used. I think there are a few basic
guarantees to worry about, and anything beyond that is overcomplicating
things.
-Steve
