On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 04:43:12PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2012-04-28 21:36, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: [...] > >Another feature I'm curious about is .dup/.idup. It's basically > >hardcoded for a couple of types, but why not instead use UFCS and > >implement .dup/.idup in std.array as a free function? Then you might > >even use it for user-types by requiring a type to implement > >.dup/.idup functions. > > Agree with this one as well. [...]
+1. This would make generic code easier to write. Which is good, because the less we have to rewrite code that's been written a hundred times in the past already, the better. T -- A linguistics professor was lecturing to his class one day. "In English," he said, "A double negative forms a positive. In some languages, though, such as Russian, a double negative is still a negative. However, there is no language wherein a double positive can form a negative." A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, yeah."