On Thursday, 15 August 2013 at 02:30:50 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 09:26:20 Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 8/14/13 7:34 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> That's a bit too terse. What about this:
> less // a < b
> less!(5) // a < 5
> lessEq // a <= b
> lessEq!(5) // a <= 5
> more // a > b
> more!(5) // a > 5
> moreEq // a >= b
> moreEq!(5) // a >= 5
> equal // a == b
> equal!(5) // a == 5
> notEqual // a != b
> notEqual!(5) // a != 5
At this point using "a < b" for a < b, "a < 5" for a < 5 etc.
becomes
awfully attractive.
I'd simply argue for doing something like binaryOp!"<" and
unaryOp!"-".
Creating different names for all of the various operators is
not at all in line
with how do things normally and definitely seems unattractive.
In contrast, by
creating specific templates for operators, we cover the main
use cases where
the string lambdas are more attractive than the newer lambda
literals. It's
also in line with how do operator overloading.
- Jonathan M Davis
Yes and avoid stupid template duplication like with "a>b" "a > b"
or by not having equals delegate literals.
This is clearly the best option for simple operations. Complex
operation should be migrated to delegate literals.
