On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:03:26 -0400, Mehrdad <wfunct...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/18/2011 6:21 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'm actually still confused at why _functions_ should be passed as
template parameters
The beauty of alias parameters <snip>
... the beauty?
Please excuse me my tone becomes a bit rant-y, but I was asking _why_,
and the reason is just... beauty? IMHO, it's getting pretty darn ugly...
Sorry for the confusion, "the beauty of X is..." is a figure of speech
that really does not necessarily have to do with beauty. It means
something like "the good part of it". You can substitute the word
"benefit" for "beauty".
As in, templates may be ugly but the benefit of using alias is...
I assure you, I was not speaking of code beauty whatsoever, I was more
speaking of it's utility and flexibility.
Templates are just that: *templates*. They're meant to avoid
__duplication of code and/or unnecessary variation in code__, by
providing a common style (i.e. a common *template*). Metaprogramming,
conditional compilation, etc. are great uses of templates, since they
avoid unnecessary duplication of code.
But using them _in lieu_ of delegates is kind of pointless -- delegates
*already* avoid duplication of code, and aliases don't solve any
problems here. (I'm guessing you disagree, in which case: Can you
provide an example of a problem that they actually solve, aside from
their "beauty"?)
Yes, the entire message that you erased for this reply was my explanation
of why it's better.
Sure, they're beautiful, but they're ugly at the same time: they don't
let the code describe itself. i.e. when you say
void Foo(alias F)() { ... }
the reader has **no idea whatsoever** what kind of "thing" F is (string?
delegate? data type?), and it gets cryptic fast. Sure, you can document
it, but isn't the whole point to let the code document itself? Not only
that, it becomes absolutely /painful/ to write completely correct
conditions for a template like this, when you can have multiple kinds of
parameters.
The problem is that the "type" of alias is described in the template
constraints later. It's hard to mentally associate that with the
parameter, but it's all we have at this point. It's almost like some
horrible function specification syntax:
f(a, b, c) ... a: int, b: int, c:string
I.e. the requirements for the parameter are specified at a completely
different location. It's not something I love, but it's all we have.
If you want to be able to pass multiple parameter types, then why not
just either use overloading or, if you're really concerned about
duplication, let the argument type be specified as a template? That
would remove the duplication issue.
There are other gains as well. First, a template can optimize calls to
that specific function, for example, a simple a < b can be inlined.
Delegates cannot. This is why std.algorithm.sort is (well, it should be,
enforce is another problem) faster than the builtin array sort. Second,
if the delegate is pure, you'd need to overload on purity as well, so that
doubles the overloads. Third, even when it cannot be inlined, the code is
specifically generated to call that function, so the call will be less
instructions, plus the type does not have to store the delegate.
If you're worried about simple things like "a < b", then it's because we
shouldn't be using a string in the first place! It's painful to write
foo(delegate(a, b) { return a < b; })
That also works, the string is just a nicety that makes it easy to write
delegate literals without having to specify too much punctuation.
but that's an easily solvable solution: Just support C#'s syntax of
lambdas and you instead get:
foo((a, b) => a < b);
which is cleaner and easy to type, and which avoids using strings for
code. Or you can just predefine it somewhere as a lessThan template, and
pass it as an argument. Either way, no strings.
I think the string solution is a means to avoid augmenting the syntax to
support something like this. I'm not really convinced by this argument
that we "shouldn't be using a string". Why not? You have brought up no
negatives about it except that you don't like it. Do you have any
substantial argument against them?
In any case, this shouldn't be an excuse for using templates -- if
typing something is hard, simplifying the syntax is the answer (I'm all
for C# lambdas...), not using the template hammer to solve everything.
It's not an excuse, there are plenty of very good reasons to use an alias
template parameter for a functor besides having a string functor. I think
if we put our heads together, we can probably come up with a good solution
to pair this with a version that uses a stored delegate as well, for those
cases where this doesn't work (as in the OP's example). Such a pattern
would be a good addition to phobos/dcollections.
-Steve
