• bearophile (11/11) Jun 27 2013 Sometimes I have code like this:
• Andrej Mitrovic (5/8) Jun 27 2013 I've wanted this too once. Although there's a tradeoff here, now the
• bearophile (4/6) Jun 27 2013 Do you have a realistic use case for generic code?
• Andrej Mitrovic (2/5) Jun 27 2013 No, I'm just speaking out loud about the possibility.

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Sometimes I have code like this:

struct VeryLongNamedStruct {}
void foo(in VeryLongNamedStruct x = VeryLongNamedStruct(1)) {}
void main() {}

Or even:

void bar(in TupleFoo x = TupleFoo(TupleBar(2), TupleSpam(3))) {}

So is it a good idea to allow "auto" in the function signature 
for the arguments that have a default value?

void foo(in auto x = VeryLongNamedStruct(1)) {}

Bye,
bearophile

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

On 6/27/13, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote:
 So is it a good idea to allow "auto" in the function signature
 for the arguments that have a default value?

 void foo(in auto x = VeryLongNamedStruct(1)) {}

I've wanted this too once. Although there's a tradeoff here, now the
user has to work more to figure out what type it can pass to the foo
function. On the other hand it could be useful in non-public and
generic code.

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Andrej Mitrovic:

 On the other hand it could be useful in non-public and generic 
 code.

Do you have a realistic use case for generic code?

Bye,
bearophile

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

On 6/27/13, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote:
 On the other hand it could be useful in non-public and generic
 code.

 Do you have a realistic use case for generic code?

No, I'm just speaking out loud about the possibility.