• Uranuz (28/28) Mar 23 2014 I have a question how I could combine template parameters
• Uranuz (3/6) Mar 23 2014 But I like it less and I still don't know how to combine template
• Andrej Mitrovic (18/21) Mar 23 2014 You can use eponymous templates for this. E.g.:
• Uranuz (3/25) Mar 23 2014 Yes. I like it more that ivoking one function from another. But
• Philippe Sigaud (3/5) Mar 23 2014 Is there any reason to still use 2.063 (honest question)? The current
• Uranuz (5/14) Mar 23 2014 No reason. I just had ability to check it in .063 and noticed

"Uranuz" <neuranuz gmail.com> writes:

I have a question how I could combine template parameters 
deduction with setting default values for template parameters. I 
will start directly from a piece of code.

string decodeURICustom(string allowedSpecChars = null, bool 
formEncoding = false, T)(T source) pure
{
    //Some processing
}

I want parameter T be deduced from context (T will be string, 
dstring, etc)
And then I want to add some aliases with specialised arguments.

alias decodeURICustom!("!$&'()*+,;=") decodeURIHost;
alias encodeURICustom!("!$&'()*+,;=") encodeURIHost;

alias decodeURICustom!("!$&'()*+,;=: /") decodeURIPath;
alias encodeURICustom!("!$&'()*+,;=: /") encodeURIPath;

But when using decodeURICustom template directly I want to be 
able not set template arguments.

void main()
{
   string str = "http://www.dlang.org";
   string result = decodeURICustom(str);
}

How could I do this? Is it possible. The example above doesn't 
complie.

Of course I could create another template function.

string decodeURIHost(T)(T source)
{

}

"Uranuz" <neuranuz gmail.com> writes:

 string decodeURIHost(T)(T source)
 {

 }

But I like it less and I still don't know how to combine template 
params deduction with setting second param.

string decodeURIHost(T, bool formEncoding)(T source) {}

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

On 3/23/14, Uranuz <neuranuz gmail.com> wrote:
 I have a question how I could combine template parameters
 deduction with setting default values for template parameters. I
 will start directly from a piece of code.

You can use eponymous templates for this. E.g.:

-----
template decodeURICustom(string allowedSpecChars = null, bool
formEncoding = false)
{
    string decodeURICustom(T)(T source) pure
    {
        return "";
    }
}

alias decodeURICustom!("!$&'()*+,;=") decodeURIHost;

void main()
{
    string str    = "http://www.dlang.org";
    string result = decodeURICustom(str);
}
-----

"Uranuz" <neuranuz gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 23 March 2014 at 11:15:13 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 On 3/23/14, Uranuz <neuranuz gmail.com> wrote:
 I have a question how I could combine template parameters
 deduction with setting default values for template parameters. 
 I
 will start directly from a piece of code.

 You can use eponymous templates for this. E.g.:

 -----
 template decodeURICustom(string allowedSpecChars = null, bool
 formEncoding = false)
 {
     string decodeURICustom(T)(T source) pure
     {
         return "";
     }
 }

 alias decodeURICustom!("!$&'()*+,;=") decodeURIHost;

 void main()
 {
     string str    = "http://www.dlang.org";
     string result = decodeURICustom(str);
 }
 -----

Yes. I like it more that ivoking one function from another. But 
this trick not working in DMD 2.063 as I understand.

Philippe Sigaud <philippe.sigaud gmail.com> writes:

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Uranuz <neuranuz gmail.com> wrote:

 Yes. I like it more that ivoking one function from another. But this trick
 not working in DMD 2.063 as I understand.

Is there any reason to still use 2.063 (honest question)? The current
one is 2.065 with .066 in alpha state. .063 is almost a year old.

"Uranuz" <neuranuz gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 23 March 2014 at 12:43:35 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
 On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Uranuz <neuranuz gmail.com> 
 wrote:

 Yes. I like it more that ivoking one function from another. 
 But this trick
 not working in DMD 2.063 as I understand.

 Is there any reason to still use 2.063 (honest question)? The 
 current
 one is 2.065 with .066 in alpha state. .063 is almost a year 
 old.

No reason. I just had ability to check it in .063 and noticed 
this fact. Now I use .064 because of some breaking changes in 
std.json. May be there will be some minor release to fix this (I 
hope). So I checked only .063, .064.