• Kagamin <spam here.lot> Mar 31 2011
• Ary Manzana <ary esperanto.org.ar> Mar 31 2011
• Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> Mar 31 2011
• Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> Apr 01 2011
• Don <nospam nospam.com> Apr 01 2011

Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:

Ary Manzana Wrote:

 I just hate it when you have to write too much


hasMember!(S, "m")
is only 1 character longer than
S::hasMember("m")

not too much for me

Ary Manzana <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:

On 3/31/11 10:35 AM, Kagamin wrote:
 Ary Manzana Wrote:

 I just hate it when you have to write too much


 hasMember!(S, "m")
 is only 1 character longer than
 S::hasMember("m")

 not too much for me


Ah, so then I change it to:

S::hm("M")

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On 2011-03-31 06:35, Kagamin wrote:
 Ary Manzana Wrote:
 I just hate it when you have to write too much


 hasMember!(S, "m")
 is only 1 character longer than
 S::hasMember("m")
 
 not too much for me


And hasMember!(S, "m") is actually consistent with the rest of the language 
and straight forward to read for those who know the language. 
S::hasMember("m") just adds more syntax where there's no need for it, and 
makes it so that there's that much more syntax to learn and keep straight.

- Jonathan M Davis

Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:

On 31/03/2011 18:37, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On 2011-03-31 06:35, Kagamin wrote:
 Ary Manzana Wrote:
 I just hate it when you have to write too much


 hasMember!(S, "m")
 is only 1 character longer than
 S::hasMember("m")

 not too much for me


 And hasMember!(S, "m") is actually consistent with the rest of the language
 and straight forward to read for those who know the language.
 S::hasMember("m") just adds more syntax where there's no need for it, and
 makes it so that there's that much more syntax to learn and keep straight.

 - Jonathan M Davis


I thought the :: syntax seemed pretty intuitive (keystroke savings never 
entered into my evaluation), but I seem to be in a minority on that.

After re-reading the previous discussion of __traits and its proposed 
replacement, however, I am reminded of an important point: language 
features should not have special powers that can't be replicated in 
client code.

So, with that in mind, I have to agree that using templates for things 
like hasMember has to be the way forward.

Having templates that are internal to the complier or that simply 
forward to __traits seems a bit odd to me. I think I'd rather see 
__traits simplified and more of work moved into the library, which may 
make it more versatile and easier to extend (pure speculation ^^).

Right, I'm off to go and squirrel all my uses or traits away inside 
templates, I have a sneaking suspicion that it is going to make some big 
improvements in readability ^^

A...

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

Alix Pexton wrote:
 On 31/03/2011 18:37, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On 2011-03-31 06:35, Kagamin wrote:
 Ary Manzana Wrote:
 I just hate it when you have to write too much


 hasMember!(S, "m")
 is only 1 character longer than
 S::hasMember("m")

 not too much for me


 And hasMember!(S, "m") is actually consistent with the rest of the 
 language
 and straight forward to read for those who know the language.
 S::hasMember("m") just adds more syntax where there's no need for it, and
 makes it so that there's that much more syntax to learn and keep 
 straight.

 - Jonathan M Davis


 I thought the :: syntax seemed pretty intuitive (keystroke savings never 
 entered into my evaluation), but I seem to be in a minority on that.
 
 After re-reading the previous discussion of __traits and its proposed 
 replacement, however, I am reminded of an important point: language 
 features should not have special powers that can't be replicated in 
 client code.
 
 So, with that in mind, I have to agree that using templates for things 
 like hasMember has to be the way forward.
 
 Having templates that are internal to the complier or that simply 
 forward to __traits seems a bit odd to me. I think I'd rather see 
 __traits simplified and more of work moved into the library, which may 
 make it more versatile and easier to extend (pure speculation ^^).
 
 Right, I'm off to go and squirrel all my uses or traits away inside 
 templates, I have a sneaking suspicion that it is going to make some big 
 improvements in readability ^^
 
 A...


It's just impossible. The whole idea of the meta namespace was to make 
it possible to hide the __traits.

Don't forget that an important part of that proposal was to clean up 
is(), as well.