On Thursday, 3 December 2015 at 22:54:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 12/03/2015 05:46 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/3/15 3:51 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I vaguely remembered I saw something like this a while ago:
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/f11894a098c6
The trick could be more fluent, but it might have merit. Has
anyone
explored it? Is it a viable candidate for becoming a D idiom?
I'm going to take a step back and ask, what's wrong with
stableFun?
Nothing. But one thing I was keeping an eye for would be to
allow lst.stable.linear.xxx and lst.linear.stable.xxx with one
body. -- Andrei
That seems like it would be confusing, since it's non-obvious
that those two things would be the same thing, though there also
isn't an obvious hierarchy between linear and stable. AFAIK,
they're orthogonal, so it's not obvious which would go inside the
other. However, it also doesn't seem very user friendly to have
that much extra stuff involved in what is essentially the
function name. Whether it's using pseudo-namespaces or is just
one long name, linearStableXXX / linear.stable.xxx and
stableLinearXXX / stable.linear.xxx are both rather unwieldy,
though I confess that I prefer not having the periods. It's
shorter that way, and you don't have to explain the
pseudo-namespaces to anyone that way either, since that's not
exactly a normal idiom. But it would be best IMHO if we could
find a way to either not need those extra tags on the function
names or to at least minimze their length.
- Jonathan M Davis
