On Sunday, 5 November 2017 at 03:02:52 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
On 04/11/2017 6:13 PM, bauss wrote:
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 13:27:29 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
[...]
It reminds a lot of traits in Rust.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.8.0/book/traits.html
Rust traits are a variant of ML's signature. Only they decided
to add a whole new concept which is 'impl' to it.
While it is a nice idea, it would be a pain to use in real life
and defeat the purpose of a signature. Which is to act as more
of a 'concept' abstraction to other items.
Because we have such powerful meta-programming features I see
no reason to separate out the two. We can do it all in one
which makes it nice and consistent between all the different
implementations for a signature type. So far its starting to
feel right at home against our structs and class support, I
think.
I like Rust's traits more than our way of ad-hoc specification of
compile-time interfaces with is(typeof({...})) or
__traits(compiles, ...). Given how most idiomatic D code is
written, to me that's the biggest deficiency of the language.
Reasonable people may, of course, disagree.
Atila
