On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 00:48:59 UTC, DypthroposTheImposter
wrote:
See the static_if paper here:
http://isocpp.org/forums
Under the post "constraints and static if" there is a link to a
document about
static_if
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDIyMDc3NjUwMTczOTM0Mjk3NjABMDI2MzM3MjkxNDM4NDQ5MzE4NDcBLWVsS1Y4dFhtdDhKATUBaXNvY3BwLm9yZwF2Mg
Are they full of it? Has it caused the problems they
mention
in
D?
It is hard for me to say, they continued to bring up that they
have better tools to achieve some of the items (constexsp) but
don't give an example of what that code would look like.
It seems like they aren't actually looking for serious discussion
on the matter; "C++ would become a low-level, unprincipled,
hackers’ favorite playground." as apposed to what it is now a
low-level, unprincipled, playground no hacker would play in
unless they had to? That combined with not wanting to include a
"realtively simple-to-use new feature" really makes it hard to
take the paper seriously.
As for template constraints, we do have issues in D;
monarch_dodra has been good to go over those. I'm glad we have
them, but they are not without their faults.
