On 24 July 2014 21:25, Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:

On 24 July 2014 19:37, John Colvin via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 24 July 2014 at 04:53:41 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:

I'm running into consistent problems with default args and argument
deduction in templates.
There seem to be 2 consistent classes of problem:

struct S(size_t len = 10)
{
  ubyte[len] data;
}

S!100 x; // this works fine
S y; // this doesn't work (!)
S!() z; // this works

The template arg has a default arg, why require !() ??

This causes problems in meta code, where you want to create an instance of
some T, and T may be a normal type with no template args, in which case !()
is invalid, but a template type with default args should also be
acceptable, but it doesn't work because the meta code doesn't specify !().

This opens a whole can of worms. It's very useful to be able to distinguish between templates and their instantiations. Seeing as D's alias system works on a pass-by-name system, you can't have a system where simply referring to a template instantiates it with no arguments.

Apart from anything else it would break *so* much code.

Isn't the call to the constructor enough to distinguish it is an instantiation rather than a reference to the template itself?

S is a template

S!() is a type

S(x,y,z) is a call to it's constructor, the expression has a type

What is the useful distinction between S!()(x,y,z) and S(x,y,z)? How does either one of them make referring to the template 'S' difficult?

Is there some conflicting syntax where the parentheses mean something else when S perceived as a template? Why isn't the same problem applicable to function templates?

Ack! Sorry! I misread, your response as being related to the constructor case, not the default arg case >_<

I see the problem with the default arg case. It's a real shame, because it has rather annoying side effects in generic code, and it doesn't appear to follow the same logical rules as with functions.

This is precisely the sort of thing Scott Myers would be unhappy about... Someone will need to 'explain' this for years to come, I don't think it's intuitive ;)