On Saturday, 20 August 2016 at 13:45:59 UTC, poliklosio wrote:
On Friday, 19 August 2016 at 18:25:06 UTC, Engine Machine wrote:
So we can create types relationships easier:
class Type(T) : Type!null
{
int x;
static if (T is Dog)
int y;
}
Type == Type!null (!null implicit, only if defined in the
above way. Essentially an alias is created for us
automatically)
This syntax would be very confusing to a non-expert. It is a
special case of an existing features (inheritance and
templates), which makes it hard to learn about, as all
resources are going to discuss those other features first, and
only the most detailed readings are going to contain this
detail. Moreover, it does not introduce a keyword or any other
name, so it is almost impossible to Google. Try googling
something like "template<class T> class a class b: public
a<b>", and see which result contains "curiously recurring
template pattern". It is hard to find, isn't it?
Moreover, as indicated by another poster, null is already a
valid template parameter, making it even more confusing. Also
it is unclear when the interpretation would be as you propose.
You need to appreciate the difference between write-only code
and code that can be easily read, reviewed and understood.
Dlang has already went too far in inventing pieces of
non-obvious syntax for template features. Lets not make the
situation worse.
Distill what you want to do, see what use cases are covered by
other features and libraries, name your thing accordingly and
then propose.
Do you not realize that if every human endeavor was to bow down
to the lowest common denominator there would be no point?
If Walter had the notion "I have to make D so the beginner can
understand it easily" Then D would be javascript or php?
If you want to be an idiot and use an idiot language, then there
are many out there. Go program in BASIC.
So your arguments appealing to ignorance(not the logical fallacy,
of course) is non-sense. Life is complex, stop trying to reduce
it to something you already can understand. I think, technically,
this is called laziness.
