Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 31 de marzo a las 17:57 me escribiste:
Agree. They should be first class citizen as dynamic arrays or hashes.
Why? Not grokking it.
It's perfectly explained in this thread why, all I have to say will
repeate something already said (the int[] vs. std::vector<int> mostly). Of
course you don't seem to agree with those arguments...
Well I don't agree, but maybe there's more arguments that could improve
that.
If they are not 1st citizens you just end up:
1) not using them
2) making your code look like boost, I mean *really* ugly ;)
(when what you want to do it's even possible, of course)
Tuple is a 1st citizen language constituent (they have to). It just
doesn't have a literal. Say we do invent a literal, e.g.:
[: int, float :] mytuple;
Does this improve the language over Tuple!(int, float)? I'm not
convinced - at all, in fact. Right now Tuple is on equal footing with
other templates and whatever introspection we have/will add works/will
work on Tuple as it works with other templates. With the extra syntax,
we'll then need to add special methods for introspecting a tuple. We'll
find ourselves also reserving a keyword "tuple" and positing that [: ...
:] is the same as tuple!(...) or some other similarly unpleasant
solution. Plus, special syntax contributes to the disconnect between
user-defined and built-in. This creates the self-perpetuating trend that
if anything is interesting, it should have a literal allocated to it.
Instead of that, let's think e.g. of methods to generally make
parameterized types look better.
Andrei
