Jason Spencer wrote:
----- Original Message ---- From: Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]>
I think you're close to the optimal. I'd probably drop function and
write:
auto g1 = int(int b, int c, int d) { return g(2,b,c,d); };
That actually fails to compile in 2.047: curry.d(13): found '(' when
expecting '.' following int
All things considered, I'm not sure that that's worse than the
arcana:
auto g1 = bind(&g, _1);
...
All in all, std.bind looks like a direct derivative of Boost's
design, which is built to deal with C++'s issues, and does not
avail itself of D's advantages.
It is at least shorter and comprehensible when glancing at it,
though. I'm not a great fan of the boost syntax or implementation
ported to D either, but I also recognize the need for some easy way
to automate that much boiler plate code. Maybe I'll futz around and
see if I can come up with a nice way of doing partial application.
If I can, could that be considered for inclusion in functional or
something?
Sure. I suggest you follow the pattern in std.functional of passing
aliases around instead of the std.bind style. The latter is less
efficient. Also I think a non-variadic solution (_0 to _9 are abhorrent)
wouldn't fare too well.
Either way, I'd politely suggest that bind should either be fixed or
removed. I assume it's been broken for 6 months now, and maybe 3
years, in D 2.0. Seems a shame to throw away something that at least
fills a hole for the time being until something better comes along,
but it may be better to keep confidence in stability up.
Walter wanted to yank it for a long time. I agreed with some reluctance
(I agree with the pros you mention) but I think it's best to deprecate
the thing.
Andrei
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
