On 05/21/2013 09:53 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:36:31 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch> wrote:
On 05/21/2013 05:31 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
...
This handles your case using opDispatch:
import std.stdio,std.conv,std.algorithm,std.array;
string commaSep(T...)(T args){
string r="";
foreach(a;args) r~=a.to!string~",";
return r[0..$-!!$];
}
struct S{
template opDispatch(string name){
template opDispatch(T...){
auto opDispatch(S...)(S args){
writeln(this,".",name,"!"~T.stringof~"(",commaSep(args),")");
}
}
}
}
void main(){
S s;
s.opBinary!"+"(2); // ok
// s.foo(); // error. should IMO be fixed.
s.foo!()(); // ok
s.bar!([1,2,3],int)("123"); // ok
}
what is the problem with just defining opBinary to catch missing
operator overloads?
It is more boilerplate.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob/bcf7dd9bd268956754bf1a034728bef29619e858/std/typecons.d#L2654
This pretty much makes my point. I have no idea what your 3-level
opDispatch does.
1st level: member name
2nd level: explicit template arguments
3rd level: ifti-deduced arguments.
The proxy type, while verbose, I can understand.
Fair point.
Yes, lots of boilerplate. If anything, though, that's an argument to
fix how operator overloading works.
At the end of the day, it's going to be less boilerplate for the
std.typecons.Proxy that one has to mixin. User code will look the same.
...
For user code there is a difference eg. in how inflated the
__traits(allMembers) result will be.
