Here is an example from the tutorial:
struct Point(T)
{
T x;
T y;
}
T getResponse(T)(string question) {
writef("%s (%s): ", question, T.stringof);
T response;
readf(" %s", &response);
return response;
}
Point!T getResponse(T: Point!T)(string question) {
On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 19:45:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
This syntax is a little confusing, but basically the ":" there
is saying
"this type, when instantiated with the following pattern,
produces a
valid type". Essentially it's equivalent to:
Point!T get
OK, so we *can* have overlapping templates in one fits better
than another, just like in C++. I still don't understand how to
read this signature:
Point!T getResponse(T: Point!T)(string question)
On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 23:59:07 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 11/28/2014 12:36 PM, Sly wrote:
Ah, now I see. In C++ we would also need to supply template
parameters, but we'd put them before return type
(template getResponse>); in D we put them
before the colon.
Now I'm trying to write a specialization for Pair. It seems that
this is the way to do it:
Pair!(A, B) getResponse(A, B: Pair!(
On Saturday, 29 November 2014 at 09:11:51 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Point!T getResponse(P : Point!T, T)(string question)
{
// ...
}
This doesn't work because now this definition has 2 parameters P
and T. I have to specify both like this: auto pt =
getResponse!(Point!int, int)("point"); whi
You miss another definition which introduces a conflict:
T getResponse(T)(string question)
{...}
On Saturday, 29 November 2014 at 17:20:42 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Saturday, 29 November 2014 at 11:07:34 UTC, Sly wrote:
On Saturday, 29 November 2014 at 09:11:51 UTC, Ali Çehreli
wrote:
Point!T getR
This is clearly an incorrect way because it requires editing the
original definition every time a new class is introduced.
On Saturday, 29 November 2014 at 19:10:34 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Saturday, 29 November 2014 at 18:19:40 UTC, Sly wrote:
You miss another definition which introduces a conflict
OK. I'm using gdc 4.8.2 and this doesn't compile, so it's
probably an old version. Checked on ideone and it works with
dmd-2.042.
Thanks a lot for your help!
On Saturday, 29 November 2014 at 20:16:24 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 11/29/2014 10:19 AM, Sly wrote:
> You miss another definition which
