http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10258
Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #2 from Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> 2013-06-03 16:09:56 PDT --- > Using is(typeof()) to check accessibility is a hacky workaround Actually, according to Don (from what I recall in a discussion on unusable init values), I don't think that that necessarily even works. You may be forced to use __traits(compiles, foo) instead. Regardless of that though, I'm not sure that it's really a hacky workaround. What if accessibility isn't the only problem? It seems to me that specifically checking for whether you have access is like checking file permissions before trying to read a file. Even if you have permissions, there are a host of other reasons that reading the file could fail, so checking for permissions explicitly doesn't generally buy you much - if anything. You only care why you can't read the file when you're trying to react differently for different error conditions, and I doubt that you generally care that you can't use a symbol due to access level as opposed to something else, so I would expect that checking for whether something compiles would be enough and might even save you having additional checks. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't add something like this, but I question its general utility. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
