Le 25/09/2012 17:08, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
On 9/25/12 10:05 AM, deadalnix wrote:
OK, my bad. It means that tuple(...) behave differently than T...
defined tuples.
And both behave differently than Caml or Haskell's tuples.
isn't the time for some unification ? Preferably on how tuples work in
other languages, except if limitations can be shown and better proposal
are made (and not include that in D2.xxx).
I'm not sure actually. The way I look at it, built-in tuples are quite
low-level (types can't be spelled, automatic expansion and flattening,
undecided first-class semantics) and should seldom be dealt with
directly. The best use of built-in tuples is in the implementation of
truly well-behaved, composable tuples.
Andrei
We currently have 2 type of tuples, both unsatisfying it its own way
(and I assume I can say it is confusing as I was confused before).
If the new tuple stuff is implemented, D will ends up with 3 tuples
systems, 2 of them unsatisfying and 1 of them satisfying (at least that
is the goal).
Still, language complexity would have increased in the process and have
3 time the same feature with different flavor isn't a good thing. Even
if the tuple solution is a good one, the resulting situation isn't.
