On Thursday, 8 September 2016 at 23:34:13 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 9/8/2016 5:10 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Consider the pattern of overloads:
template foo(T) if (condition!T) { }
template foo(T) if (!condition!T) { }
It makes condition!T a user-facing constraint, which it
shoul
On 9/8/2016 5:10 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Consider the pattern of overloads:
template foo(T) if (condition!T) { }
template foo(T) if (!condition!T) { }
It makes condition!T a user-facing constraint, which it should not be.
This looks like a nice guideline. Good work. Pushing the r
On 9/7/16 9:49 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 9/7/2016 8:46 AM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
Yeah, this problem ultimately comes down to healthy use of DRY in
Phobos in
regards to string handling code. This was always the tradeoff with
DRY: with
small pieces of reused code being put into functions, it make
On 9/7/2016 8:46 AM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
Yeah, this problem ultimately comes down to healthy use of DRY in Phobos in
regards to string handling code. This was always the tradeoff with DRY: with
small pieces of reused code being put into functions, it makes maintenance and
optimization easier, bu
On Tuesday, 6 September 2016 at 10:04:06 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
The drawback of this is taking this in as a reader and
maintainer. We have the 'text' template which calls the
'textImpl' template which calls the 'to' template which calls
the 'toImpl' template which calls the 'parse' tem
We've learned a lot about good D idioms since std.conv was initiated.
And of course it was always the case that writing libraries is quite
different from writing code to be used within one sole application.
Consider:
* to!T(x) must work for virtually all types T and typeof(x) that are
sensibl
