http://www.digitalmars.com/d/template-comparison.html

Comments?

>                          D  C++98 C++0x
>Partial Specialization | Yes  Yes  NoChange

Actually, partial specialization in D is a kind of yes-and-no.
In C++98, we can do this:
  template<class T, class U>
    class Foo< map<T,U> > { ... }; // Partially specialized to "associative arrays"
while in D, cannot:
  class Foo(T: /* ? */) {}

Combination of staticIf/typeof/IFTI may achieve the same effect, but in my opinion it is not partial specialization anymore.

-- 
k.inaba / $B0pMU0l9@(B (http://www.kmonos.net)

Kazuhiro Inaba wrote:
>>                          D  C++98 C++0x
>> Partial Specialization | Yes  Yes  NoChange
> 
> Actually, partial specialization in D is a kind of yes-and-no.
> In C++98, we can do this:
>   template<class T, class U>
>     class Foo< map<T,U> > { ... }; // Partially specialized to "associative arrays"
> while in D, cannot:
>   class Foo(T: /* ? */) {}

You're right there is a problem when one wants to specialize on a type
dependent on more than one parameter.
You can do things like:

    class Foo(T, U, M : map!(T,U)) ...

but it isn't quite as clean.

> Combination of staticIf/typeof/IFTI may achieve the same effect, but in my opinion it is not partial specialization anymore.

static if can do a reasonable job covering for it.

I haven't checked the contents yet, but in Firefox the code blocks are way too wide. The width of the page is more than twice my screen width (1280). In IE7 it's ok.

L.

Lionello Lunesu kirjoitti:
> I haven't checked the contents yet, but in Firefox the code blocks are way too wide. The width of the page is more than twice my screen width (1280). In IE7 it's ok.

I'm using Firefox 2.0 (1280x1024) on Linux and it's working just fine.

!!?! I just did a reload of the page and now it's OK!

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
> !!?! I just did a reload of the page and now it's OK!

The stylesheet must have changed or something.
It was also *way* too wide for me before, but a complete reload fixed it somewhat. It's still slightly too wide, but at least if I scroll to the right I can now get the entire width of the table onto the screen. While I look at the table I don't need the menu anyway.
Still, it could be a little less wide.

Walter Bright wrote:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/template-comparison.html
> 
> Comments?

Links on the "Yes"'s in the D column to the relevant parts of the spec would be nice and also consistent with the old feature comparison table.

Walter Bright wrote:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/template-comparison.html
> 
> Comments?

You left out specialisation of template value parameters <g>.

Lionello Lunesu escribió:
> !!?! I just did a reload of the page and now it's OK!

I had the same problem, and reloaded too, and was gone too. Weird...

-- 
Leandro Lucarella
Integratech S.A.
4571-5252