Timon Gehr wrote:
struct Foo {
struct Unsafe {
static:
string name;
void bar() {
writeln(name); // fine
}
}
}
Foo.Unsafe.name is static and not per-instance. That's a
completely different thing than having a "namespace" within the
object which serves only as a semantic layer to classify property
access.
Like I said, it's completely possible with templates today,
you just
have to alias them for nice syntax. Parameterless templates
It is not really a 'template' if it is parameterless and does
not need to be instantiated.
Sure it is. Templates provide a semantic convenience over
reusable bits of code that get resolved at CT. It's more like a
CT struct than a CT function. So it makes perfect sense to have
parameterless ones, especially because you can already have that,
only with less pretty code.
would just
be sugar, but that sugar would be nice when you want to use
classifications like this in real code.
This idiom imho shouldn't be overused. Renamed imports usually
suffice.
I don't see how import renaming applies to what I've suggested.
It's a completely different topic. I'm sure it could be abused,
like anything else, but It is useful in some areas, and I don't
see any reason not to have a usable syntax for something that's
already achievable in D.
Honestly I think this could be another "nah nah nah, look what
our language can do" bullet point in D's favor. So far as I know,
no other (efficient) language can sub-classify it's objects
without increasing their per-instance memory footprint + require
manually wiring up the connection. While in D it's simply an
emergent feature of a beautiful template design.
D gives more control over the structure of objects than any other
language, without sacrificing a thing. That sounds like a good
marketing point to me :)
