On 2/15/17 3:53 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I do see a possibility for a slightly improvement in a different area,
in the example of "remove". If we look at the signature, without the
constraints:
Range remove
(SwapStrategy s = SwapStrategy.stable, Range, Offset...)
(Range range, Offset offset)
Why isn't it possible to use "auto" when declaring a parameter with a
default argument?
Range remove
(auto s = SwapStrategy.stable, Range, Offset...)
(Range range, Offset offset)
A minor improvement, but I also feel like it would lift an arbitrary
limitation in the language.
That's nice, could you please submit as an enhancement request on bugzilla?
I haven't followed the C++ concepts lately either and not very closely
at all so I don't feel I can comment on the C++ concepts.
You may want to correct that if you want to make a serious proposal for
D concepts.
But if I
recall correctly, you're "static if" proposal wasn't well received [1].
But now with "if constexpr" it looks like they're changing their minds.
[1] "The static if feature recently proposed for C++ [1, 2] is
fundamentally flawed, and its adoption would be a disaster for the
language" http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3613.pdf
"I made a terrible mistake" is spelled
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0128r0.html
here. It still has a cargo cult flavor because it introduces a new
scope, which kinda misses the point of static if.
Andrei
