Thanks!
I plan to add more text at the end of the chapter that discusses the
opportunities of CTFE. Walter revealed to me that CTFE, particularly now
after it's been improved by leaps and bounds by Don and by Walter
himself, could obviate a lot of the traditional metaprogramming
techniques developed for C++.
One question that bugs me is, where do you draw the line? Say there's a
metaprogramming problem at hand. How to decide on solving it with CTFE
vs. solving it with templates? It would be great to have a simple
guideline that puts in contrast the pluses and minuses of the two
approaches.
It is quite possible that templates get relegated to parameterized
functions and types, whereas all heavy lifting in metaprogramming should
be carried with CTFE.
Andrei
div0 wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Thanks to all who answered! I wish there was such consensus in other
matters as well :o).
Allow me to put forth an excerpt from TDPL without any particular
reason: http://erdani.com/tdpl/excerpt.pdf
Andrei
"There are many random number generators out there, among
which the fast and well-studied linear congruential generators."
^
You are missing an "are"
Personally I'd append something like:
"Therefore we wish to test the parameters to our generator" to the
paragraph starting "But there is a rub."
Also:
The penultimate paragraph about interpretation process being slow seems
rather redundant. It's just an implementation detail and dmd compiles
huge libraries 1000x faster than c++ anyway.
- --
My enormous talent is exceeded only by my outrageous laziness.
http://www.ssTk.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFKz4vrT9LetA9XoXwRAlrkAJ9QYiIv8XZ2H+lRuUSnyZV1HKDp6QCfdXig
SVeeO0pY47V2vdWtbuZopmg=
=ytCp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
