• simendsjo (8/8) Aug 06 2010 Rationale (http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/rationale.html) says:
• Steven Schveighoffer (8/17) Aug 06 2010 __traits was an experiment, one that is highly successful, and will like...

simendsjo <simen.endsjo pandavre.com> writes:

Rationale (http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/rationale.html) says:
"""Why not use operator names like __add__ and __div__ instead of opAdd, 
opDiv, etc.?

__ keywords should indicate a proprietary language extension, not a 
basic part of the language. """


But traits is explained under the language spec, 
http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/traits.html.


Can I expect traits to exist for all compiler implementations, or just dmd?

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:42:40 -0400, simendsjo <simen.endsjo pandavre.com>  
wrote:

 Rationale (http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/rationale.html) says:
 """Why not use operator names like __add__ and __div__ instead of opAdd,  
 opDiv, etc.?

 __ keywords should indicate a proprietary language extension, not a  
 basic part of the language. """


 But traits is explained under the language spec,  
 http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/traits.html.


 Can I expect traits to exist for all compiler implementations, or just  
 dmd?

__traits was an experiment, one that is highly successful, and will likely  
be a permanent part of the language.

It has been suggested that we choose a keyword to replace __traits, meta  
was one such suggestion that I like.  AFAIK, Walter hasn't really  
commented on it.

-Steve