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?
What an unfair article. I guess someone is angry at D.
I don't think C++11 is that good an upgrade. Concepts were
delayed. Lambdas can't be templated, can't be recursive.
constexpr is useless compared to CTFE. Move semantics are easy to
use but much harder to really understand.
I recently had to duplicate inline assembly code in C++. I would
not have been forced to do it in D since (naked inline assembly +
static if) can save a lot of lines. static if allow to get
polymorphism at finer granularities.
