Just for curiosity: why template declaration doesn't use '!()' instead of '()'.
Wouldn't using the same symbols in both (the declaration and the instantiation)
be a little more "consistent" to the sight?

Regards,

Tom;

Tom escribió:
> Just for curiosity: why template declaration doesn't use '!()' instead of '()'.
> Wouldn't using the same symbols in both (the declaration and the instantiation)
> be a little more "consistent" to the sight?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tom;

The ! syntax was added after the () syntax. Formerly, it was:

template Foo(T)
{
}

class A
{
}

instance Foo(int) Foo_int;
instance Foo(A) Foo_A;

Later on, instance was deprecated and ! came to life. I believe the instance syntax is not valid now.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

"Tom" <Tom_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:duca8l$1mik$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Just for curiosity: why template declaration doesn't use '!()' instead of
> '()'.
> Wouldn't using the same symbols in both (the declaration and the
> instantiation)
> be a little more "consistent" to the sight?

It has to do with it being a context-free grammar.  That is, if templates just used plain old parentheses, it would take more work to determine what the symbol was that preceeded them.

I like !(), I see it and immediately know I'm dealing with a template.  It's like how <> stands out in C++ templates.

In article <ducfbj$1vds$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Jarrett Billingsley says...
>
>"Tom" <Tom_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:duca8l$1mik$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Just for curiosity: why template declaration doesn't use '!()' instead of
>> '()'.
>> Wouldn't using the same symbols in both (the declaration and the
>> instantiation)
>> be a little more "consistent" to the sight?
>
>It has to do with it being a context-free grammar.  That is, if templates just used plain old parentheses, it would take more work to determine what the symbol was that preceeded them.
>
>I like !(), I see it and immediately know I'm dealing with a template.  It's like how <> stands out in C++ templates.

I'm not complaining about !(). I'm asking, why not use !() in the template
declaration as well.

Tom;

"Tom" <Tom_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:ducikm$232g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I'm not complaining about !(). I'm asking, why not use !() in the template
> declaration as well.

Because it's unnecessary from a syntactical point of view.

In article <ducljs$28f8$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>
>"Tom" <Tom_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:ducikm$232g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> I'm not complaining about !(). I'm asking, why not use !() in the template
>> declaration as well.
>
>Because it's unnecessary from a syntactical point of view.

I know, but it seems more coherent even though it's unnecessary.

Tom;