On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:35:02 UTC, JS wrote:
Can we have UFCS for templates?
e.g.,
T New(T, A...)(A args) { }
T t = T.New(args);
Note, in this case, the type parameter is substituted.
A while back I made this enhancement request:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id
On Monday, 12 August 2013 at 12:53:40 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 12 August 2013 at 12:07:26 UTC, eles wrote:
,,,
You seem to miss the key point - burden of proof is one someone
who does not spend efforts. Idea costs nothing. Proposals costs
nothing. If JS would have come with done pull r
On Monday, 12 August 2013 at 12:07:26 UTC, eles wrote:
On Saturday, 10 August 2013 at 18:28:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Friday, August 09, 2013 05:29:05 JS wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:57:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:34:31 UTC, JS wrote:
Um, not re
On Monday, 12 August 2013 at 12:07:26 UTC, eles wrote:
,,,
You seem to miss the key point - burden of proof is one someone
who does not spend efforts. Idea costs nothing. Proposals costs
nothing. If JS would have come with done pull request for this -
it would have been my job to provide co
On Saturday, 10 August 2013 at 18:28:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Friday, August 09, 2013 05:29:05 JS wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:57:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:34:31 UTC, JS wrote:
Um, not really..
[snip]
Actually, that is how it works. If you w
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 13:36:44 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 11:46:42 UTC, eles wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 11:30:54 UTC, anonymous wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:34:31 UTC, JS wrote:
On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:55:04 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
[...]
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 07:22:12 UTC, barryharris wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 04:33:52 UTC, barryharris wrote:
auto test2 = New!AnotherTest("test2", 20);
oops, should read:
auto test2 = New!AnotherTest(20);
-1 for me anyway for the following reason:
A.funct
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 11:46:42 UTC, eles wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 11:30:54 UTC, anonymous wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:34:31 UTC, JS wrote:
On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:55:04 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
[...]
As always, providing motivating use case and advantage/cost
com
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 03:29:20 UTC, JS wrote:
Um, not really... Do you think that god made some law that
requires me to?
There's nothing supernatural involved, but there is basic
scientific method and engineering rigour. Anyone can throw out
ideas about how they think things "ought to
On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:35:02 UTC, JS wrote:
Can we have UFCS for templates?
e.g.,
T New(T, A...)(A args) { }
T t = T.New(args);
Note, in this case, the type parameter is substituted.
What happen if the first template parameter is an alias parameter
?
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:34:31 UTC, JS wrote:
On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:55:04 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:35:02 UTC, JS wrote:
Can we have UFCS for templates?
e.g.,
T New(T, A...)(A args) { }
T t = T.New(args);
Note, in this case, the type parameter
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 12:22:51 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Come on, in this case I don't think he needs to provide a
motivating use case.
What's the motivating use case for UFCS in the first place? You
can live without it just fine, only the syntax is uglier. Being
able to call a functi
On 8/8/13 2:55 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:35:02 UTC, JS wrote:
Can we have UFCS for templates?
e.g.,
T New(T, A...)(A args) { }
T t = T.New(args);
Note, in this case, the type parameter is substituted.
As always, providing motivating use case and advantage/cost
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 11:46:42 UTC, eles wrote:
C'mon, guys, cool down. Both (or the three) of you are right.
Some tend to forget that everybody here is a volunteer, so there
is no such such thing as a duty. Others are enthusiastic and
throw in ideas. People are of different kinds, sparks
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 11:30:54 UTC, anonymous wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:34:31 UTC, JS wrote:
On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:55:04 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
[...]
As always, providing motivating use case and advantage/cost
comparison is usual requirement to make something happen.
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:34:31 UTC, JS wrote:
On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:55:04 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
[...]
As always, providing motivating use case and advantage/cost
comparison is usual requirement to make something happen.
DIP's exist for a reason.
Are you not smart enough to co
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 03:29:20 UTC, JS wrote:
It's not his proposal. The burden of proof is on you.
I would think that if you really cared about the D lang you
would want it to be the best it can...
In any case, I know very well that it is quite useless for me
to make suggestions fo
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 04:33:52 UTC, barryharris wrote:
auto test2 = New!AnotherTest("test2", 20);
oops, should read:
auto test2 = New!AnotherTest(20);
-1 for me anyway for the following reason:
A.function(args)// I know A is a function value parameter
functi
auto test2 = New!AnotherTest("test2", 20);
oops, should read:
auto test2 = New!AnotherTest(20);
-1 for me anyway for the following reason:
A.function(args)// I know A is a function value parameter
function!A(args)// I know A is a template type parameter
functi
On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:35:02 UTC, JS wrote:
Can we have UFCS for templates?
e.g.,
T New(T, A...)(A args) { }
T t = T.New(args);
Note, in this case, the type parameter is substituted.
Actually, what is wrong with New!T(args)? This works fine for me:
T t = New!T(args
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 03:41:56 UTC, barryharris wrote:
So instead of:
T t = New!T(args)
you would like:
T t = T.New(args)
Is that it?
Never mind, I read your original post again...
Note, in this case, the type parameter is substituted.
On Friday, August 09, 2013 05:29:05 JS wrote:
> On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:57:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> > On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:34:31 UTC, JS wrote:
> >> Are you not smart enough to come up with use cases yourself?
> >> This is not some extremely rare thing that might be used 1 in
>
So instead of:
T t = New!T(args)
you would like:
T t = T.New(args)
Is that it?
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:57:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:34:31 UTC, JS wrote:
Are you not smart enough to come up with use cases yourself?
This is not some extremely rare thing that might be used 1 in
10^100.
It's not his proposal. The burden of proof is on
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:34:31 UTC, JS wrote:
Are you not smart enough to come up with use cases yourself?
This is not some extremely rare thing that might be used 1 in
10^100.
It's not his proposal. The burden of proof is on you.
On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:55:04 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:35:02 UTC, JS wrote:
Can we have UFCS for templates?
e.g.,
T New(T, A...)(A args) { }
T t = T.New(args);
Note, in this case, the type parameter is substituted.
As always, providing motivating use
On Thursday, August 08, 2013 19:35:01 JS wrote:
> Can we have UFCS for templates?
>
> e.g.,
>
> T New(T, A...)(A args) { }
>
>
> T t = T.New(args);
>
>
> Note, in this case, the type parameter is substituted.
And how is the compiler supposed to know whether
On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:35:02 UTC, JS wrote:
Can we have UFCS for templates?
e.g.,
T New(T, A...)(A args) { }
T t = T.New(args);
Note, in this case, the type parameter is substituted.
As always, providing motivating use case and advantage/cost
comparison is usual requirement to
On Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 17:35:02 UTC, JS wrote:
Can we have UFCS for templates?
e.g.,
T New(T, A...)(A args) { }
T t = T.New(args);
Note, in this case, the type parameter is substituted.
That would be nice things to have, it would allow the
parse!type(...) to be turned into
Can we have UFCS for templates?
e.g.,
T New(T, A...)(A args) { }
T t = T.New(args);
Note, in this case, the type parameter is substituted.
30 matches
Mail list logo
