On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:17:36 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:17:18 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu > <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: > >> Don wrote: >>> [I'm moving this from deep inside a TDPL thread, since I think it's >>> important] >>> is(typeof(XXX)) is infamously ugly and unintuitive >>> __traits(compiles, XXX) is more comprehensible, but just as ugly. >>> They are giving metaprogramming in D a bad name. I think we need to >>> get rid of both of them. >>> A very easy way of doing this is to replace them with a 'magic >>> namespace' -- so that they _look_ as though they're functions in a >>> normal module. >>> Names which have been suggested include 'meta', 'traits', 'scope', >>> 'compiler'. Personally I think 'meta' is the nicest (and I suggested >>> two of the others <g>). >> >> Another keyword, sigh... > > Wouldn't meta *replace* a keyword? i.e. no more __traits. > > Maybe I misunderstand the proposal, but that's what I thought. > > -Steve
__traits is no keyword from a practical viewpoint. It is very unlikely to conflict with other names.
