On Saturday, 3 August 2013 at 01:15:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 2013-08-03 00:51:19 +0000, F i L said:
I've brought this up on here awhile ago, and many people
seemed to be against it. Which I don't agree with, since the
ambiguities it creates are easily addressed (from a design
perspective at least) and only exist so that C-style code is
usable within D. It could work like:
auto func(a, b) // auto func(A, B)(A a, B b)
auto func(int a, b) // auto func(B)(int a, B b)
auto func(int ?) // C-style: auto func(int)
Or...
auto func(auto a, auto b) // like C++14
I mean honestly, who's hand-writing a bunch of functions with
nameless params in real D code? Sure it's used for linking to
C, which is semi-common, but I think having the much cleaner
syntax available to "actual" D code makes more sense that not
having it solely for linking-to-C-in-familiar-C-style reasons.
The converse question is who's hand-writing a bunch of
functions that don't need their arguments' types in any way
(for constraints or otherwise). There are very few functions
that really apply to all types. It's possible that by allowing
auto parameter types we encourage a sloppy style.
Andrei
The existence of template restrictions and the swathes of
different things in std.traits and elsewhere really persuaded me
to think about the requirements of my templates. Having to spell
it out a bit is a good thing.
In short: I agree.
