On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 at 17:30:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> quoted lambdas are indeed shorter, but the issue with them is that "a<b" instantiates a different template than "a < b", whereas the lambda does not.
>
> In fact, that is why we added shorthand lambdas to the language. Note that in this case, it's just wasted code space and not a real issue. but for example, RedBlackTree!(int, "a < b") is not compatible with RedBlackTree!(int, "a<b"), even though they are identical.
>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't allow string lambdas, just that we shouldn't encourage them as "proper" D code.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work at all for lambdas.

RedBlackTree!(int, (a, b) => a < b) tree1;
RedBlackTree!(int, (a, b) => a < b) tree2;

//Fails
assert(is(typeof(tree1) == typeof(tree2)));

On 4/21/15 2:53 PM, Justin Whear wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:34:35 +0000, Chris wrote:
>> Yeah, but I have to ask a stupid question. How do I add a PR? I've never
>> done it before.
>
> This wiki page will walk you through it:
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Pull_Requests
>

Just FYI, the thing you want to fork is phobos.

And I would, at this point, just avoid trying to build the whole thing. This isn't a very complex change. But you can try if you want. Building the docs is a pain, and trying to get it to build with what you checked out instead of it trying to get it from github is not exactly straightforward.

-Steve

On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 at 17:30:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> for example, RedBlackTree!(int, "a < b") is not compatible with RedBlackTree!(int, "a<b"), even though they are identical.

I'm pretty sure this can and should be fixed. Removing whitespace before creating the function would be start.

On 4/21/15 3:00 PM, Meta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 at 17:30:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> quoted lambdas are indeed shorter, but the issue with them is that
>> "a<b" instantiates a different template than "a < b", whereas the
>> lambda does not.
>>
>> In fact, that is why we added shorthand lambdas to the language. Note
>> that in this case, it's just wasted code space and not a real issue.
>> but for example, RedBlackTree!(int, "a < b") is not compatible with
>> RedBlackTree!(int, "a<b"), even though they are identical.
>>
>> I'm not saying we shouldn't allow string lambdas, just that we
>> shouldn't encourage them as "proper" D code.
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work at all for lambdas.
>
> RedBlackTree!(int, (a, b) => a < b) tree1;
> RedBlackTree!(int, (a, b) => a < b) tree2;
>
> //Fails
> assert(is(typeof(tree1) == typeof(tree2)));

What? I thought this was the entire point of these?

Hm... let me dig it up.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10819

http://forum.dlang.org/post/jnlqesrwxfekdsxjerlp@forum.dlang.org

Looks like that's not solved :(

I was sure we introduced this to fix this string quirkiness problem, but I am wrong. I can't find the discussion I remember about this triggering the new syntax.

Is there any possibility to move towards a solution where two identical context-free lambdas are equivalent when generating a template?

There were also some pretty good ideas in that thread I referenced that never got fleshed out.

-Steve

On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 at 18:53:08 UTC, Justin Whear wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:34:35 +0000, Chris wrote:
>> Yeah, but I have to ask a stupid question. How do I add a PR? I've never
>> done it before.
>
> This wiki page will walk you through it:
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Pull_Requests

Cool. Thanks!

On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 at 18:10:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 4/21/15 2:06 PM, Chris wrote:
>
>> multiSort should at least be added to the cheat sheet in
>> std.algorithm.sorting.
>
> This I can agree with. Can you add a pull request for it?
>
> -Steve

I've added a pull request for it. The first I've ever committed, and a very simple one. I hope everything is ok. It's PR #3236.