Thu, 02 Dec 2010 11:10:33 +0200, so wrote: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? >> title=Template_metaprogramming&diff=64616972&oldid=64616688 >> >> The discussion page mentions it doesn't add any value and I can't >> disagree. > > They might be clueless to say that, but you?
I agree static-if, alias parameters, and the other extensions are worth mentioning, but syntactical changes more or less aren't. I'd introduce the templates using code written in C++ and then list the differences between C++ and D. After all, C++ and C++ TMP are widely known. Even I have few books of them in my bookshelf and ps/pdf papers discussing C++ TMP. There aren't any books or peer reviewed articles about D's metaprogramming, right? Prioritizing D over C++ doesn't make sense, the citations should emphasize notable relevant sources. > >> Resists? You weren't able to fill it with D propaganda? It already >> lists the DigitalMars pages as only references. And provides 2/3 >> examples in D. What else should it do? > > What propaganda are you talking about? If they are not some populist > pricks first thing you would see on that page would be D. It clearly seems that both C++ and D communities think they invented the term CTFE. In C++ the functions are "meta-functions" (templates) [1], in D "ordinary" functions. But the same shit comes with a different name in other languages. It's essentially the same concept of metaprogramming. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Template-Metaprogramming-Concepts-Techniques- Beyond/dp/0321227255