> But,
> I'm sorry, I do not have the ability to work with the code
> itself, now.
> I take a few other things.
>
> Regards,
> Khursid.

Oh,god !!!

Is this code right?


template templateAnd(Preds...)
{
      template templateAnd(T...)
      {
          static if (Preds.length == 0)
          {
              enum  templateAnd = true;
          }
          else static if (Preds.length == 1)
          {
			enum  templateAnd = Instantiate!(Preds[0],T);
		}
		else
		{
			static if (Instantiate!(.templateAnd(Preds[0..$/2]),T))
			{
			   enum  templateAnd =
Instantiate!(.templateAnd(Preds[$/2..$]),T);
			}
			else
			{
				enum  templateAnd = false;
			}
		}
      }
}

here
   template Instantiate(alias P, T...)
   {
	 alias Instantiate = P!(T);
   }

On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 08:46:03 UTC, khurshid wrote:
> Is this code right?
>
>
> template templateAnd(Preds...)
> { … }

No. templateAnd/templateOr are documented to perform short-circuit evaluation of the operands.

David

On 04/24/2013 09:28 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 08:46:03 UTC, khurshid wrote:
>> Is this code right?
>>
>>
>> template templateAnd(Preds...)
>> { … }
>
> No. templateAnd/templateOr are documented to perform short-circuit
> evaluation of the operands.
>
> David

I think that is what the implementation intends to do. I am more worried about the expressions reading similar to:

.templateAnd(Preds[0..$/2])

The code appears to be entirely untested.

On 04/24/2013 10:28 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 09:28 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 08:46:03 UTC, khurshid wrote:
>>> Is this code right?
>>>
>>>
>>> template templateAnd(Preds...)
>>> { … }
>>
>> No. templateAnd/templateOr are documented to perform short-circuit
>> evaluation of the operands.
>>
>> David
>
> I think that is what the implementation intends to do. I am more worried
> about the expressions reading similar to:
>
> .templateAnd(Preds[0..$/2])
>
> The code appears to be entirely untested.

(Also, the lookup rules have been changed for function calls and template instantiations on eponymous template symbols, and therefore the '.' prefix is not needed anymore.)

I am newbie D language. Only, I am playing with meta programming.

I have a question.

Using D language futures, could to implement NoDuplicates meta algorithm with O(N) time, or though O(N ln(N) )?

And, what to you're saying about that, MostDerived implementation?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9976