I often find myself creating templates like:

// ----
tempate doSomethingImpl(T) {
	template loop(int i) {
		....
		alias ... loop;
	}

	alias loop!(0) res;
}

template doSomething(T) {
	alias doSomethingImpl!(T).res doSomething;
}
// ----

Clearly the second template is redundant and exists there only to make the usage pattern easier.
My proposal is to change the rules for implicit template properties

from:
"If a template has exactly one member in it, and the name of that member is the same as the template name, that member is assumed to be referred to in a template instantiation"

to:
"If a template has exactly one *public* member in it, (...) "


Then, the template would look like:

// ----
tempate doSomething(T) {
	private template loop(int i) {
		....
		alias ... loop;
	}

	alias loop!(0) doSomething;
}
// ----



Opinions ?


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/

> Opinions ?

Yes, it should always be possible to write the things easy. Having the restriction of only one member for such a template seams needless. Your proposal opens another door for easier code with less complexity.

Tom S wrote:
> I often find myself creating templates like:
> 
> // ----
> tempate doSomethingImpl(T) {
>     template loop(int i) {
>         ....
>         alias ... loop;
>     }
> 
>     alias loop!(0) res;
> }
> 
> template doSomething(T) {
>     alias doSomethingImpl!(T).res doSomething;
> }
> // ----
> 
> Clearly the second template is redundant and exists there only to make the usage pattern easier.
> My proposal is to change the rules for implicit template properties
> 
> from:
> "If a template has exactly one member in it, and the name of that member is the same as the template name, that member is assumed to be referred to in a template instantiation"
> 
> to:
> "If a template has exactly one *public* member in it, (...) "
> 
> 
> Then, the template would look like:
> 
> // ----
> tempate doSomething(T) {
>     private template loop(int i) {
>         ....
>         alias ... loop;
>     }
> 
>     alias loop!(0) doSomething;
> }
> // ----
> 
> Opinions ?

This would be awesome.


Sean