On Friday, 29 December 2017 at 13:08:38 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
On 29/12/2017 12:59 PM, rjframe wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:39:25 +0000, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Friday, 29 December 2017 at 12:03:59 UTC, Mike Franklin
wrote:
The problem is that interfaces are a runtime thing (e.g. you
can cast a
class to an interface)
structs implement compile time interfaces via template duck
typing
(usually enforced via an if()).
you could probably write a wrapper that introspected an
interface and
enforced that all members were implemented.
I've actually thought about doing this to get rid of a bunch
of if
qualifiers in my function declarations. `static interface {}`
compiles but
doesn't [currently] seem to mean anything to the compiler, but
could be a
hint to the programmer that nothing will directly implement
it; it's a
compile-time interface. This would provide a more generic way
of doing
stuff like `isInputRange`, etc.
Or we could get signatures, which are even better still!
I was about to answer that interfaces could be used to define
duck types conformity models but this would be a poor and useless
addition, indeed, compared to signatures.
