On 03/15/2010 11:30 AM, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Here's a comparison I did of C++0x proposed features and D a while
back. It's out of date and incomplete, but it's a reasonable
overview: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/cpp0x.html I suppose I
need to revisit it now that C++0x is nearing completion.
In the past I didn't understand the section about Concepts of that
page , now I am understanding most of it, thanks to this very nice
article that explains the semantics and usefulness of concept maps:
http://www.devx.com/SpecialReports/Article/38864/1954?pf=true This
article has let me understand why concept maps are much more powerful
(and probably more useful) than D template Constraints.
One man's trash may be another man's treasure, but I think it would be
unproductive to build from a feature that was analyzed at length and
then explicitly rejected by another language, at great cost. To effect
that, you'd have to understand the reasons that made concepts unsuitable
for C++0x and then work out ways to make concepts work for D.
Detecting mistaken use of concepts is practically very easy - just write
a type that implements the concept vacuously and then instantiate the
tested template against it in a unittest. I sometimes do that to test my
range-based code.
Andrei
