On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 06:33:21PM +0000, Seb via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > On Tuesday, 9 April 2019 at 16:30:53 UTC, Alex wrote: > > On Tuesday, 9 April 2019 at 14:59:03 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: > > > [...] > > I didn't say the language. The point with the language is that it > > could have built in semantics to do reflection in a inform > > way(__traits is somewhat uniform but messy and then one has > > std.traits which then makes it not uniform). > > > > [...] > > Have you considered writing a DIP?
I think the original intent was that __traits was supposed to be low-level, implementation-specific calls into the compiler, while std.traits is supposed to be the user-friendly syntactic sugar built on top that user code is supposed to use. Unfortunately, it turned out that people prefer using __traits directly instead, and std.traits hasn't quite been keeping up with new __traits (e.g., AFAIK __traits(compiles) does not have a std.traits equivalent), and is also less familiar to many people, so now we have a mishmash of code sometimes using __traits and sometimes std.traits. T -- VI = Visual Irritation
