Ignore this: I went to reply, hit the wrong key, and it sent before I got to type anything... The *real* reply in another post...
"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:isu4gg$5ff$1...@digitalmars.com... > "Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message > news:isu15s$30as$1...@digitalmars.com... >> On 6/10/11 3:34 PM, Michel Fortin wrote: >>> If you want something to be used everywhere and it is not an >>> implementation detail, make it part of the language. Implementing what >>> sounds should be a language feature through a template hack and putting >>> it the standard library is not going to make people feel good about the >>> language, it'll remind them of what the language is missing. >> >> The problem with the "hack" label is that it instantly decreases the >> level of the conversation. It's the "N" word of programming. >> >> I don't want a universal thing, I want to solve a simple problem: there >> are 7 yes/no enums in Phobos, and probably some more to come. Flag solves >> that problem in a reasonable way. This is pretty much it. >> >>>>> And just try to think of the signature for the function above if it >>>>> was >>>>> using Flag! >>>>> >>>>> void foo(Flag!"param" param, Flag!"otherParam" otherParam, >>>>> Flag!"thisOneIsntRequired" thisOneIsntRequired = >>>>> Flag!"thisOneIsntRequired".no); >>>>> >>>>> Do we really want to expose that in the documentation? >>>> >>>> Yes, that's the whole point, though I agree the hiccup in the default >>>> initializer is annoying. >>> >>> I find it funny that you see a hiccup only in the default initializer >>> when the name of all parameter is also duplicated in its type. Shouldn't >>> that be 4 hiccups? >> >> I don't think so, but I understand how you can frame that as an argument >> that supports your viewpoint. >> >>>> The documentation doesn't need the names anymore; the user would just >>>> say: >>>> >>>> void foo( >>>> Flag!"compressed", >>>> Flag!"encrypted", >>>> Flag!"buffered" = Flag!"buffered".no); >>>> >>>> Save for the "ehm" default parameter this looks palatable to me. >>> >>> Does that mean we now need a language feature to tell the documentation >>> generator not to emit attribute names for parameters of type Flag!"" ? >> >> No, just version(ddoc) for select functions if you want them to. You have >> the needed means within the language. >> >> >> Andrei > >
