On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 at 00:38:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
1. What do we need?
Nothing. Everything discussed thus far can already be done in D,
but with either a little or a lot of tedium and error-prone
hackery. What I think would benefit D is a
cleanup/simplification/sugarization of the current tuple
situation. TypeTuple causes no end of grief and confusion.
2. What does a solution look like in the current language?
See Kenji's DIP for Bearophile's example of tuple use in the
current language. Throughout this discussion there have also been
several other examples of how TypeTuple misbehaves.
3. Which parts of the solution are frequent/cumbersome enough
to warrant a language change?
IMO, TypeTuple auto-expansion and mixing of data/types within the
same TypeTuple. It's also annoying that TypeTuples are not
first-class values, and it would be a pity if we did not come up
with some sort of tuple literal syntax, but that situation can be
worked around by wrapping it in Tuple.
Instead there have been 1001 proposals for new syntax for tuple
literals, one cuter than the next.
Wouldn't you call this characterization a little unfair, when
there were numerous posts also discussing relevant issues and
semantics? I'd say the ratio of form:function has been pretty
good thus far.
