On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 04:43:11 UTC, Patience wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 00:47:10 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
To be fair, this is a D newsgroup and you did not specify that
you are talking about this as a general concept rather than
something for D. My first reaction was the same. It's only
natural to assume you are talking about this as a part of D.
Yes, but that isn't the point. The point is that only retards
such as Bob takes abstractions literally.
I don't, really. I'm pointing out that you have given us far too
little to have any sensible discussion. Your post is equivalent
to 'What if cows could fly? Imagine the possibilities.' Yes,
there may be advantages to flying cows, but if you can't think of
good ideas, why should the onus be on the rest of us to do that
for you?
Why does it matter if I used [] or {} or . or \ or <> to
reference something doesn't exist yet and hence could be
defined any way one wants?
VGhpcyBpcyBidWxsc2hpdC4g
IOW:
If we are to discuss anything, we need to agree on a language.
here, we tend to use English, and we tend to discuss in the
context of D. Feel free to transcend these borders, but say so
clearly, and don't be surprised if people misunderstand you when
you don't. Even more, don't act like a total jackass when someone
does (as was the reason for my somewhat more spirited post
yesterday).
That is, I except someone to have to think about what I'm
saying and interpret it properly instead of just adding there 2
cents and pretending like it's a dollar.
Your opening post fits exactly within this prison you just built
- you have 2 very vague and unfinished ideas and seem to think
they are a million dollars. Maybe there's something there, but
you have failed to show it.
As for the int[size] idea, here's a template that could do
everything you describe:
template Int(size_t bits)
{
static if (!bits.isPowerOf2 || bits < 8)
// use bitfields
else static if (bits == 8)
alias Int = byte;
else static if (bits == 16)
alias Int = short;
else static if (bits == 32)
alias Int = int;
else static if (bits == 64)
alias Int = long;
else
alias Int = FixedSizeBigInt!bits; // Does not exist yet.
Please to write?
}
We are now down to one vague idea. Let's kill that off while
we're at it:
auto possiblyNullRange(R)(R r) if (isInputRange!R)
{
static if (isBidirectionalRange!R)
{
static if (hasAssignableElements!R)
alias resultType = BidirectionalAssignable;
else
alias resultType = BidirectionalRange;
}
else static if (...) // And so on for all the different range
variations.
alias E = ElementType!R;
if (r is null)
return resultType!E(r);
else
return resultType!E([]);
}
We could even rename that to q, and we end up with the same
number of characters: 'foreach (e; q(myRange))' vs 'foreach[?]
(e; myRange)'.
We now have but a nebulous concept of keywords that take
parameters, and no idea how to use them. That and your tone are
what I object to, not your careless use of syntax.
