On Saturday, 15 July 2017 at 10:34:13 UTC, Enamex wrote:
>
> But specializations are quite different from constraints, no? Constraints wouldn't help when the template name is overloaded and passes the constraint checks of several different template implementations; specializations narrow things down for overload resolution.
>
> Unless I'm misunderstanding the OP or everyone else in the thread somehow :/

That's exactly right, you've probably put it better than I have! Specializations are quite different from constraints and I have found as you said that specializations are a great way to narrow things down for overload resolution. I use them to dispatch methods and they are the easiest way to specify a known set of kinds on a method set. When you narrow to your specialization set like that it will always work in the same way - no rouge types will mess things up.

On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 19:49:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> An effective way of improving the state of affairs would be to create a PR that makes the constraint easier to read and write, e.g.:
>
> among!(R, double, int) && among!(W, string, char, dchar)
>
> In fact it's surprising it hasn't been proposed yet.
>
> Andrei

Forgive me, but what about anySatisfy
https://dlang.org/library/std/meta/any_satisfy.html

On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 12:29:41 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
>
> Forgive me, but what about anySatisfy
> https://dlang.org/library/std/meta/any_satisfy.html

Oh sorry, I see that's a little different.