http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8220



--- Comment #12 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-06-21 16:00:03 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > (In reply to comment #7)
> > > This example has been around a long time, and I've been telling people 
> > > that
> > > that's the way to do it. I'm really reluctant to break it,
> > 
> > The behaviour must be fixed for __traits(compiles,...), but not necessarily 
> > for
> > typeof.
> 
> I think this would be opening a very big can of worms, because is(typeof(…))
> has been equivalent to __traits(compiles, …) so far (well, for things that 
> have
> a type).

I don't think that not conflating the notions of being able to deduce a type
for 
an expression and of whether or not it actually compiles in a given context is 
opening any cans of worms.

What I am suggesting is to make __traits(compiles, ...) behave like is(typeof({
...;})).

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to