• Tom (5/5) Mar 04 2006 Just for curiosity: why template declaration doesn't use '!()' instead o...
• Carlos Santander (14/21) Mar 04 2006 The ! syntax was added after the () syntax. Formerly, it was:
• Jarrett Billingsley (7/12) Mar 04 2006 It has to do with it being a context-free grammar. That is, if template...
• Tom (4/16) Mar 04 2006 I'm not complaining about !(). I'm asking, why not use !() in the templa...
• Walter Bright (3/5) Mar 04 2006 Because it's unnecessary from a syntactical point of view.
• Tom (3/8) Mar 04 2006 I know, but it seems more coherent even though it's unnecessary.

Tom <Tom_member pathlink.com> writes:

Just for curiosity: why template declaration doesn't use '!()' instead of '()'.
Wouldn't using the same symbols in both (the declaration and the instantiation)
be a little more "consistent" to the sight?

Regards,

Tom;

Carlos Santander <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:

Tom escribió:
 Just for curiosity: why template declaration doesn't use '!()' instead of '()'.
 Wouldn't using the same symbols in both (the declaration and the instantiation)
 be a little more "consistent" to the sight?
 
 Regards,
 
 Tom;

The ! syntax was added after the () syntax. Formerly, it was:

template Foo(T)
{
}

class A
{
}

instance Foo(int) Foo_int;
instance Foo(A) Foo_A;

Later on, instance was deprecated and ! came to life. I believe the instance 
syntax is not valid now.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"Tom" <Tom_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:duca8l$1mik$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Just for curiosity: why template declaration doesn't use '!()' instead of 
 '()'.
 Wouldn't using the same symbols in both (the declaration and the 
 instantiation)
 be a little more "consistent" to the sight?

It has to do with it being a context-free grammar.  That is, if templates 
just used plain old parentheses, it would take more work to determine what 
the symbol was that preceeded them.

I like !(), I see it and immediately know I'm dealing with a template.  It's 
like how <> stands out in C++ templates. 

Tom <Tom_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <ducfbj$1vds$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Jarrett Billingsley says...
"Tom" <Tom_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:duca8l$1mik$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Just for curiosity: why template declaration doesn't use '!()' instead of 
 '()'.
 Wouldn't using the same symbols in both (the declaration and the 
 instantiation)
 be a little more "consistent" to the sight?

It has to do with it being a context-free grammar.  That is, if templates 
just used plain old parentheses, it would take more work to determine what 
the symbol was that preceeded them.

I like !(), I see it and immediately know I'm dealing with a template.  It's 
like how <> stands out in C++ templates. 

I'm not complaining about !(). I'm asking, why not use !() in the template
declaration as well.

Tom;

"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Tom" <Tom_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:ducikm$232g$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm not complaining about !(). I'm asking, why not use !() in the template
 declaration as well.

Because it's unnecessary from a syntactical point of view. 

Tom <Tom_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <ducljs$28f8$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
"Tom" <Tom_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:ducikm$232g$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm not complaining about !(). I'm asking, why not use !() in the template
 declaration as well.

Because it's unnecessary from a syntactical point of view. 

I know, but it seems more coherent even though it's unnecessary.

Tom;