quote
{
i don't want to keep it explicit with a keyword or token.
oh, and i want to get rid of templates that are like namespaces. eighter we get
namespaces, and can add template parameters to it, or no namespaces at all.
namespaces or not, i want templates for functions, and for classes.
instance Swap(int).call(a,b); is just plain stupid..
instance(int) swap(a,b); would be nice, for example..but
swap(a,b); is still unbeatable....
}

quote
{
The instance() form of instantiation is a nuisance that I never
understood the need for. Is it just because the are no unambiguous
parantheses "left"? I'm sure we can find some unused token to replace
the <>! If you use templates a lot then all this "instance" stuff
becomes starts getting on your nerves quickly. And it doesn't exactly
make the code more readable either...
}

return true;

Doesnt this seem like the D standard is kinda oriented towards easy compiler generation and fast compilation ? It isn`t always a good thing... dont get me wrong, i have never coded a compiler so i dont know how hard it is to code this stuff... but this template instantiation syntax pisses me off :/

Heretic wrote:
> Doesnt this seem like the D standard is kinda oriented towards easy compiler
> generation and fast compilation ? It isn`t always a good thing... dont get me
> wrong, i have never coded a compiler so i dont know how hard it is to code this
> stuff... but this template instantiation syntax pisses me off :/

I'm all for making a few tradeoffs for the sake of compiler simplicity, but I think good, convenient generic programming support is one of those things that's worth suffering a few contortions for.

 -- andy

Andy Friesen wrote:

> Heretic wrote:
> 
>> Doesnt this seem like the D standard is kinda oriented towards easy compiler
>> generation and fast compilation ? It isn`t always a good thing... dont get me
>> wrong, i have never coded a compiler so i dont know how hard it is to code this
>> stuff... but this template instantiation syntax pisses me off :/
> 
> 
> I'm all for making a few tradeoffs for the sake of compiler simplicity, but I think good, convenient generic programming support is one of those things that's worth suffering a few contortions for.
> 
>  -- andy
> 

Hmm.  I would expect to do:

list<int> intList = new list<int>;

or even

list<list<int>> listOfIntLists = new list<list<int>>;

Granted, I might (for my own convenience sake) do a typedef for these
types:

typedef list<int> intlist;
typedef list<intlist> intcartesian;

But I would expect those types of decisions to be my perogative as a
developer.

Is there regexp support in D?  It might simplify checking for certain
types of matches.

"Berin Loritsch" <bloritsch@d-haven.org> wrote in message news:bqielr$29c4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Is there regexp support in D?  It might simplify checking for certain types of matches.

import std.regexp;

at your service!