On Monday, 23 December 2013 at 02:46:40 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
This DIP makes several unfounded assumptions. It assumes that the semantics of template argument lists are inherently hard to learn,
Hard? No. Complicated - yes, I see wrong assumptions being made all the time. But this is language failure and is not directly related to this DIP.
and that removing the auto-expanding aspect will make them easier to learn.
I don't say that. I say that it will allow to avoid introduction of _third_ tuple type into Phobos which would have makes things even harder to learn.
claims that it enables previously impossible algorithms.
Algorithm that operates on variadic amount of template argument lists can't be expressed with TypeTuple behavior.
It claims to be a compromise derived from several previous discussions (without citing any),
That I admit of my failure but I was not able to find discussions in archive in time. I will do it and add those as links eventually.
I hate to say this, but it looks a lot like your personal agenda against auto-expanding lists is tacked onto and conflated with the naming problem, which I think is disingenuous.
Well, if you will actually find those threads, you will see that I was in favor of auto-expanding behavior ;) It was Andrei who has convinced me.
I don't agree. I think we'd be in good shape just by fixing the naming problem, which is a much less controversial change.
We can't afford to add even more "tuple" types in library.
Please don't pull the argument-by-authority card. Private conversations that affect all of us like this need to die in a fire. We should consider this kind of thing the equivalent of tainted evidence.
I am merely implying that this is not yet another random DIP that will hang for eternity and that this discussion will have some practical consequences in very nearby future, whatever the final outcome is.
