BDP wrote:
> 
> Again, please excuse my ignorance, but if you have a template, how would
> you check for things like 
> 
> 	in
> 	{
> 		assert(object!=null); 	}
> 	
> This code snippet is valid for class references but not primitive types. 

D allows templates to be specified for use with a heirachy of class/types.
i.e.
template mine( T : Object ) {
	void func( T object )
	in { assert( object!== null ); } // note the "! = ="

	// for object/ref types
	// D "= = =" is eqiv to java "= ="
	// D "a = = b" is eqiv to Java a.equals( b )
	// D "a ! = b" is eqiv to Java !a.equals(b)
	// D "! = = " is eqiv to Java "!="
}

template mine( T : int|uint|short|ushort ) {
	void func( T object )
	in { assert( object != 0 ); } // note the "! = ="
}

you can't make an instance of "mine" with struct or floating point type.
problem solved, (the Generics in Java spec allows this too)

> 
> It seems to me that you pay a price for generality in terms of strong
> program type checking and contract programming.
> 
I disagree dynamically typed and weakly typed langs handle can template
in some cases  better than strongly typed langs.

everything has a price, in Java you have to cast in any "container" class. however with D the price is mainly in the source rather than the object files.