> Now that you mention that concepts don't extend what you can do, quite the > opposite, I'll mention that I've wanted rough feature parity between Nim > generics and C++/D templates, which means template template parameters as > well as variadic templates. I would prefer those to concepts, but you haven't > been receptive to the idea, so I assume those won't happen.
No, I am actually quite interested in these features but for v2 or later. > BTW, generic methods, concepts and static[T] both seem to be part of the type > system. If you wouldn't call these "type system issues", what would you call > them? I only referred to `concept`. And given Nim's duck typing generics I would call them "macro-like", nowadays. Not that it matters much. Anyway, it's a bit unfair to be concerned about the quality of the Nim features we marked as experimental. You should be concerned about features we think work well but don't. ;-)
