A pattern in D is this:
alias Foo!q{
stuffs
} MyFoo;
Where Foo is a templated struct/class. In many ways, this is similar to
defining a new type, and I therefore throw out the suggestion that the
syntax should reflect this. I may be wrong, but I think this syntax is
unused and fitting:
Foo
On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 01:24:54 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
Critique? Thoughts?
What problem does this solve?
On 01/27/2012 02:24 AM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
A pattern in D is this:
alias Foo!q{
stuffs
} MyFoo;
Where Foo is a templated struct/class. In many ways, this is similar to
defining a new type, and I therefore throw out the suggestion that the
syntax should reflect this. I may be wrong, but I think
Timon Gehr wrote:
alias MyFoo = Foo!q{
}
This syntax makes a lot of sense, but why have the '=' at all?
Why not just:
alias Num float;
alias MyFoo Foo!q{
};
On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 22:02:55 UTC, F i L wrote:
Timon Gehr wrote:
alias MyFoo = Foo!q{
}
This syntax makes a lot of sense, but why have the '=' at all?
Why not just:
alias Num float;
alias MyFoo Foo!q{
};
I guess one reason is that it fits better with the rest of the
language,
On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 22:20:47 UTC, a wrote:
On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 22:02:55 UTC, F i L wrote:
Timon Gehr wrote:
alias MyFoo = Foo!q{
}
This syntax makes a lot of sense, but why have the '=' at all?
Why not just:
alias Num float;
alias MyFoo Foo!q{
};
I guess one reason
On 01/27/2012 11:29 PM, F i L wrote:
On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 22:20:47 UTC, a wrote:
On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 22:02:55 UTC, F i L wrote:
Timon Gehr wrote:
alias MyFoo = Foo!q{
}
This syntax makes a lot of sense, but why have the '=' at all? Why
not just:
alias Num float;
alias My
No, they are all additive and backwards-compatible changes.
Ahh I see now, that makes sense.
