• Tobias Pankrath (25/25) Nov 17 2011 It would be cool, if the following would be possible.
• Timon Gehr (10/34) Nov 17 2011 This works:
• Tobias Pankrath (1/10) Nov 17 2011 Nice to know, thanks!
• Timon Gehr (4/43) Nov 17 2011 This only works if the __traits gets you a TypeTuple back. (It won't

Tobias Pankrath <tobias pankrath.net> writes:

It would be cool, if the following would be possible. 
----
immutable string MemberID = "M";

struct A {}
struct B {
    alias A M;
}

template Member(T)
{
    static if(__traits(hasMember, T, MemberID))
    {
        alias __traits(getMember, T, MemberID) Member;
    }
    else
        alias TypeTuple!() Member;
}

void main()
{
    alias Member!(B) M;
}
----

Currently dmd will print "basic type expected, not __traits".
Why isn't traits allowed here and if we allow __traits there, would this 
introduce any ambiguities?

Tobias

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 11/17/2011 06:12 PM, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
 It would be cool, if the following would be possible.
 ----
 immutable string MemberID = "M";

 struct A {}
 struct B {
      alias A M;
 }

 template Member(T)
 {
      static if(__traits(hasMember, T, MemberID))
      {
          alias __traits(getMember, T, MemberID) Member;
      }
      else
          alias TypeTuple!() Member;
 }

 void main()
 {
      alias Member!(B) M;
 }
 ----

 Currently dmd will print "basic type expected, not __traits".
 Why isn't traits allowed here and if we allow __traits there, would this
 introduce any ambiguities?

This works:

alias TypeTuple!(__traits(getMember, T, MemberID)) Member;

It is a mere grammar issue. The aliased symbol must look like a valid 
type. I'd like that to change too.

This helps a lot with the current state of affairs:

template ID(alias x){alias x ID;}


It will even allow funny things like this:

alias ID!((a,b){return a+b;}) add;

static assert(add(1,2) == 3);

Tobias Pankrath <tobias pankrath.net> writes:

 This helps a lot with the current state of affairs:
 
 template ID(alias x){alias x ID;}
 
 It will even allow funny things like this:
 
 alias ID!((a,b){return a+b;}) add;
 
 static assert(add(1,2) == 3);

Nice to know, thanks!

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 11/17/2011 06:41 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
 On 11/17/2011 06:12 PM, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
 It would be cool, if the following would be possible.
 ----
 immutable string MemberID = "M";

 struct A {}
 struct B {
 alias A M;
 }

 template Member(T)
 {
 static if(__traits(hasMember, T, MemberID))
 {
 alias __traits(getMember, T, MemberID) Member;
 }
 else
 alias TypeTuple!() Member;
 }

 void main()
 {
 alias Member!(B) M;
 }
 ----

 Currently dmd will print "basic type expected, not __traits".
 Why isn't traits allowed here and if we allow __traits there, would this
 introduce any ambiguities?

 This works:

 alias TypeTuple!(__traits(getMember, T, MemberID)) Member;

This only works if the __traits gets you a TypeTuple back. (It won't 
work in this case, it will create a one-element tuple). Better use ID 
from below.


 It is a mere grammar issue. The aliased symbol must look like a valid
 type. I'd like that to change too.

 This helps a lot with the current state of affairs:

 template ID(alias x){alias x ID;}


 It will even allow funny things like this:

 alias ID!((a,b){return a+b;}) add;

 static assert(add(1,2) == 3);