Hasan Aljudy wrote:
> 
> 
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>
>> In the archives somewhere, there is a long thread discussing an
>> implementation of min (or max; can't remember).  From what I do
>> remember, it basically boiled down to "good grief this is actually
>> really hard once you involve types!".
> 
> Doesn't the new mixin construct solve the issue?
> 

Not unless you want to wrap your min/max statement's in mixins.  I think this is overkill for min/max unless it was used for some higher level pattern.

-Joel

Daniel Keep wrote:
> freeagle wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> torhu wrote:
>>>> You can use typeof to get the common type, like this:
>>>>
>>>> typeof(T + U) max(T, U)(T arg1, U arg2)
>>>> {
>>>>         return arg1 > arg2 ? arg1 : arg2;
>>>> }
>>> The + isn't always defined, so you can use:
>>>
>>> typeof(true ? cast(T)0 : cast(U)0) max(T, U)(T x1, U x2)
>>> {
>>>     return x1 > x2 ? x1 : x2;
>>> }
>>  could you please explain what this means? coz i'd say it always returns T
>>
>> typeof(true ? cast(T)0 : cast(U)0)
>>
>> And, i think this wont work for classes that overload the >,< etc
>> operator, as you can't do cast(class)0, can you?
> 
> In the archives somewhere, there is a long thread discussing an
> implementation of min (or max; can't remember).  From what I do
> remember, it basically boiled down to "good grief this is actually
> really hard once you involve types!".
> 
> Might be worth searching for it and having a read.  In fact, because I'm
> feeling so helpful this morning:
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/challenge_implement_the_max_function_47026.html
> 
> Hope this helps
> 
> 	-- Daniel
> 


aha, sorry, i wasnt really followig the development and talk about D for 2 or 3 months, so missed it

Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> torhu wrote:
>>> You can use typeof to get the common type, like this:
>>>
>>> typeof(T + U) max(T, U)(T arg1, U arg2)
>>> {
>>>         return arg1 > arg2 ? arg1 : arg2;
>>> }
>>
>> The + isn't always defined, so you can use:
>>
>> typeof(true ? cast(T)0 : cast(U)0) max(T, U)(T x1, U x2)
>> {
>>     return x1 > x2 ? x1 : x2;
>> }
> 
> Is there a plan to allow:
> 
> typeof(true ? x1 : x2) max(T, U)(T x1, U x2)
> {
>     return x1 > x2 ? x1 : x2;
> }

That should probably be made to work, too, but currently it doesn't.

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Is there a plan to allow:
> 
> typeof(true ? x1 : x2) max(T, U)(T x1, U x2)
> {
>     return x1 > x2 ? x1 : x2;
> }

Is it impossibly hard or ambiguous to allow the compiler to infer the return type here? Something like

> auto max(T, U)(T x1, U x2)
> {
>     return x1 > x2 ? x1 : x2;
> }