• Monkol <dj_mon mail.ru> Jun 02 2011
• "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> Jun 02 2011
• "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> Jun 02 2011
• "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> Jun 05 2011
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Jun 05 2011
• David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> Jun 05 2011
• Mehrdad <wfunction hotmail.com> Jun 05 2011
• "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> Jun 02 2011
• Monkol <dj_mon mail.ru> Jun 05 2011
• so <so so.so> Jun 06 2011

Monkol <dj_mon mail.ru> writes:

i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style  
template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and it will  
be easy to adapt.

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:15:24 -0400, Monkol <dj_mon mail.ru> wrote:

 i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style  
 template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and it  
 will be easy to adapt.


If this is a legitimate request, and not trolling, this design change was  
on purpose:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/templates-revisited.html

-Steve

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"Monkol" <dj_mon mail.ru> wrote in message 
news:op.vwgs7ypjcqe400 pc-2010.dnepr.net.ua...
i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style 
template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and it will 
be easy to adapt.


I came from C++, and I found it easy to adapt. Plus, like it says in the 
link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>.

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"Monkol" <dj_mon mail.ru> wrote in message 
news:op.vwmftxtmcqe400 pc-2010.dnepr.net.ua...
 On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:36:42 +0300, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> 
 wrote:

 On 2011-06-02 13:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Monkol" <dj_mon mail.ru> wrote in message
 news:op.vwgs7ypjcqe400 pc-2010.dnepr.net.ua...

i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style
template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and it


be easy to adapt.


 I came from C++, and I found it easy to adapt. Plus, like it says in the
 link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>.


 LOL. I use C++ in my job, but I use templates in D so much more than I 
 do in
 C++ that I now end up using !() instead of <> unless I catch myself. I
 actually ultimately much prefer !() - especially since you can reduce it 
 to
 just ! when there's only one template argument and it doesn't have any 
 periods
 in it.

 Though honestly, if a programmer can't get used to a slightly different
 syntax, then they're screwed anyway. Every language has its quirks and
 differences. Syntax is a very small part of all of that. Really, the 
 syntax is
 the _easy_ part. It's the semantics where the real problems start as far 
 as
 adapting to a new language goes.

 - Jonathan M Davis


 the statement to<float("123e2")> is more easy readable then 
 to!float("123e2") for example


I find to!float("123e2") more readable. And once again, "like it says in the 
link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>".

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

On 06/05/2011 04:11 PM, Monkol wrote:
 On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:36:42 +0300, Jonathan M Davis
 <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:

 On 2011-06-02 13:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Monkol" <dj_mon mail.ru> wrote in message
 news:op.vwgs7ypjcqe400 pc-2010.dnepr.net.ua...

i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style
template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and it


be easy to adapt.


 I came from C++, and I found it easy to adapt. Plus, like it says in the
 link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>.


 LOL. I use C++ in my job, but I use templates in D so much more than I
 do in
 C++ that I now end up using !() instead of <> unless I catch myself. I
 actually ultimately much prefer !() - especially since you can reduce
 it to
 just ! when there's only one template argument and it doesn't have any
 periods
 in it.

 Though honestly, if a programmer can't get used to a slightly different
 syntax, then they're screwed anyway. Every language has its quirks and
 differences. Syntax is a very small part of all of that. Really, the
 syntax is
 the _easy_ part. It's the semantics where the real problems start as
 far as
 adapting to a new language goes.

 - Jonathan M Davis


 the statement to<float("123e2")> is more easy readable then
 to!float("123e2") for example


Except you ironically got the easily readable syntax wrong...

Andrei

David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> writes:

On 6/5/11 11:11 PM, Monkol wrote:
 the statement to<float("123e2")> is more easy readable then
 to!float("123e2") for example


(You probably meant »to<float>("123e2")«).

That's purely subjective (and, by the way, I don't agree with your 
assertion), while there are objective downsides to using angled brackets 
– they are ambiguous with the <, >, and >> operators. For example, 
consider the following pieces of C++ code:
»foo<bar<16>>2>>« or just »foo<bar>>«

Do you see the ambiguity created here? D doesn't suffer from this 
problem, since ! is never used as a binary operator.

David

Mehrdad <wfunction hotmail.com> writes:

 "Monkol" <dj_mon mail.ru> wrote in message
 news:op.vwgs7ypjcqe400 pc-2010.dnepr.net.ua...

i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style
template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and 


be easy to adapt.


 I came from C++, and I found it easy to adapt. Plus, like it says in 
 the
 link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>.






It's not just a "looks" issue. Doing that would no longer allow the 
language to be context-free, because of ambiguities with 
greater-than/less-than operators.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/52506/c-template-ambiguity

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On 2011-06-02 13:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Monkol" <dj_mon mail.ru> wrote in message
 news:op.vwgs7ypjcqe400 pc-2010.dnepr.net.ua...
 
i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style
template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and it will
be easy to adapt.


 I came from C++, and I found it easy to adapt. Plus, like it says in the
 link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>.


LOL. I use C++ in my job, but I use templates in D so much more than I do in 
C++ that I now end up using !() instead of <> unless I catch myself. I 
actually ultimately much prefer !() - especially since you can reduce it to 
just ! when there's only one template argument and it doesn't have any periods 
in it.

Though honestly, if a programmer can't get used to a slightly different 
syntax, then they're screwed anyway. Every language has its quirks and 
differences. Syntax is a very small part of all of that. Really, the syntax is 
the _easy_ part. It's the semantics where the real problems start as far as 
adapting to a new language goes.

- Jonathan M Davis

Monkol <dj_mon mail.ru> writes:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:36:42 +0300, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  
wrote:

 On 2011-06-02 13:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Monkol" <dj_mon mail.ru> wrote in message
 news:op.vwgs7ypjcqe400 pc-2010.dnepr.net.ua...

i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style
template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and it  


be easy to adapt.


 I came from C++, and I found it easy to adapt. Plus, like it says in the
 link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>.


 LOL. I use C++ in my job, but I use templates in D so much more than I  
 do in
 C++ that I now end up using !() instead of <> unless I catch myself. I
 actually ultimately much prefer !() - especially since you can reduce it  
 to
 just ! when there's only one template argument and it doesn't have any  
 periods
 in it.

 Though honestly, if a programmer can't get used to a slightly different
 syntax, then they're screwed anyway. Every language has its quirks and
 differences. Syntax is a very small part of all of that. Really, the  
 syntax is
 the _easy_ part. It's the semantics where the real problems start as far  
 as
 adapting to a new language goes.

 - Jonathan M Davis


the statement to<float("123e2")> is more easy readable then  
to!float("123e2") for example

so <so so.so> writes:

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:11:47 +0300, Monkol <dj_mon mail.ru> wrote:

 On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:36:42 +0300, Jonathan M Davis  
 <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:

 On 2011-06-02 13:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Monkol" <dj_mon mail.ru> wrote in message
 news:op.vwgs7ypjcqe400 pc-2010.dnepr.net.ua...

i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style
template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and it  


be easy to adapt.


 I came from C++, and I found it easy to adapt. Plus, like it says in  
 the
 link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>.


 LOL. I use C++ in my job, but I use templates in D so much more than I  
 do in
 C++ that I now end up using !() instead of <> unless I catch myself. I
 actually ultimately much prefer !() - especially since you can reduce  
 it to
 just ! when there's only one template argument and it doesn't have any  
 periods
 in it.

 Though honestly, if a programmer can't get used to a slightly different
 syntax, then they're screwed anyway. Every language has its quirks and
 differences. Syntax is a very small part of all of that. Really, the  
 syntax is
 the _easy_ part. It's the semantics where the real problems start as  
 far as
 adapting to a new language goes.

 - Jonathan M Davis


 the statement to<float("123e2")> is more easy readable then  
 to!float("123e2") for example


No it is not, but if you were talking about templates arguments rather  
than single argument, you'd have your case.

fun!(T1, T2, ... TN)(A1, A2, ... AN);
vs
fun<T1, T2, ... TN>(A1, A2, ... AN);