On 2017-02-14 17:25, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
My recollection is past discussions got stalled because the approach is
combinatorially bankrupt. How would one express the constraints of the
functions above with simple named constraints? (Not rhetorical; please
do provide an example if possible.) Before long there is an explosion in
names ("BidirectionalWithLvalueElementsAndLength", ...).
Forgot to say that I don't think it's unreasonable to have a named
constraint for each function (regardless if using only existing language
features or adding something new). That way you can lift out the
constraint separately from the function declaration. One way to make
something complex less complex, is to split it up. It's not like you
would have the complete source code of an application in a single file,
that would be too much to read in one place (yes, there are other
reasons to have multiple files). Same idea here.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
