Denis Koroskin escribió:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:24:10 +0300, Jarrett Billingsley
<jarrett.billings...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:37:06 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley
<jarrett.billings...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
How do you do this without the Template Identity syntax?
(I'm going to start calling it this to promote the term I thought was
best
;)
I'm not suggesting it be removed. I'm suggesting that if you were
only able to put one symbol in the template, it would be completely
unnecessary. Templates would always resolve to the single symbol that
they declare.
So without requiring the alias how do you rewrite my example? I'm not
saying you are wrong, I just don't grasp what you are saying. An
example
would be helpful.
It would go along with the suggestion of having some kind of name for
the current template. Something like:
template Blah(T)
{
static if(is(T : int))
alias T this template;
else
alias T* this template;
}
'this template' (which reads like English, nicely) would be
lexicalized as a single token and would only be legal within
templates. But this suggestion is somewhat orthogonal.
Sean has proposed (or let out a secret?) that:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:02:18 +0300, Sean Kelly <s...@invisibleduck.org>
wrote:
Oh, and should this actually be:
template Blah(Stuff)
{
alias ... this;
}
I thought that was the new syntax.
But maybe "this" gets confused with "this class' instance" (just the
meaning, I think there's no ambiguity in the semantic pass). What about:
alias T template;
?
