• dfgh <dfgh mailinator.com> Nov 30 2008
• Kagamin <spam here.lot> Nov 30 2008
• Kagamin <spam here.lot> Nov 30 2008
• dfgh <dfgh mailinator.com> Nov 30 2008

dfgh <dfgh mailinator.com> writes:

Kagamin Wrote:

 how do you plan to infer types?


What needs to be inferred? The type would be written wherever it is needed.

Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:

dfgh Wrote:

 Kagamin Wrote:
 
 how do you plan to infer types?


 What needs to be inferred? The type would be written wherever it is needed.


That will be too verbose. May be I misused the term. In
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/template.html it's called argument deduction.
See Function Templates section where Square(3) is deduced to be
Square!(int)(3). This is a nice feature.

Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:

And you'd better get acquainted with
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/template.html
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/template-mixin.html
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/templates-revisited.html
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/variadic-function-templates.html
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/template-comparison.html
and figure out whether you proposal barely covers all D templates use cases.

dfgh <dfgh mailinator.com> writes:

Kagamin Wrote:

 And you'd better get acquainted with
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/template.html
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/template-mixin.html
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/templates-revisited.html
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/variadic-function-templates.html
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/template-comparison.html
 and figure out whether you proposal barely covers all D templates use cases.


I have read all those pages. My proposal would be compatible with them. About
your other question, instead of writing:

T Square(T)(T t)
{
    return t * t;
}

writefln("The square of %s is %s", 3, Square(3));

we would write:

T Square(type T, T t)
{
    return t * t;
}

writefln("The square of %s is %s", 3, Square(3));

If a non-type argument is used in place of a type that will occur later in the
parameter list, we just skip the type and infer it later. It works just as well
as the current approach. If you think it would be too confusing, you can put
all your types before any non-types; it would just be syntactic sugar on what
we have now.

--Sam