Denis Koroskin Wrote: > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:42:31 +0400, Jason House > <jason.james.ho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > I would have a type type, usable for both compile time and run time > > reflection. > > > > I'd separate that into built-in "type" and library "Type" types.
I don't really understand how you're envisioning use of types. Can you elaborate a bit more? I'd normally assume the library Type class would be the same as used by the compiler. That would seem to keep things clean/complete, but there's no reason someone couldn't make an enhanced wrapper which would also be usable at compile time > > I've probably forgotten a number of basic things, but that should be > > enough for now. > > I believe templates are better be written in imperative style. That's why > a built-in "type" type is needed. Absolutely! Do you have any inspirational examples? > Great list. Thanks > I believe with upcoming finalization of D2 some of us are > already looking into future and D3 so keep thinking. While you get your > inspiration from D, D could also adopt some of your suggestions. Maybe. Somehow I think most of my list is too extreme. D has even moved away from some of the stuff in my list. (for example, in used to be scope const)