digitalmars.D - Template argument deduction for class templates adopted in cpp17
- mogu (5/5) Jul 25 2016 Link:
- Steven Schveighoffer (5/10) Jul 26 2016 I think this should be forwarded. It's a very nice thing, and having C++...
- deadalnix (7/12) Jul 26 2016 I'd like to see that move forward, but the way this DIP is doing
Link: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0091r1.html And we have DIP40: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP40 Is someone there to renew it in new DIPs repo? T.T
Jul 25 2016
On 7/26/16 1:12 AM, mogu wrote:Link: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0091r1.html And we have DIP40: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP40 Is someone there to renew it in new DIPs repo? T.TI think this should be forwarded. It's a very nice thing, and having C++ adopting it could be new incentive to solve it. Must keep up with the Joneses :) -Steve
Jul 26 2016
On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 at 05:12:13 UTC, mogu wrote:Link: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0091r1.html And we have DIP40: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP40 Is someone there to renew it in new DIPs repo? T.TI'd like to see that move forward, but the way this DIP is doing it won't cut it. Defining IFTY for structs and functions independently is a recipe to have subtle difference between the 2. I'd support a proposal that define the concept of "Callable" or whatever the name, and then define IFTI for callables.
Jul 26 2016