On Mon, 23 May 2011 09:32:47 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
it's akin to
making:
if(x);
invalid. Yes, it's valid syntax, but it's almost certainly not what the
user wanted. It's special cased for failure, to aid the developer in
writing less buggy programs. This would be a similar change, and I
actually thought it was already in the compiler.
It is in the compiler. It is actually not valid syntax anymore
(disallowed by
grammar and caught by the parser).
When I said I thought it was already in the compiler, I meant the bizarro
function type declaration, not the empty if statement.
And it is not similar to removing function type
alias. You can write if(x){} as a replacement if you need it.
There is currently no alternative for the alias.
But why do you need a function type vs. a function pointer type?
Especially since the function pointer type is easily built from the
function type, and you can't actually use the function type until you turn
it into a function pointer.
I'll throw it back at you, do you see a good use case for it? And no,
porting C code isn't a good use case.
There are no alias in C code.
I actually gave one:
Timon Gehr wrote:
alias int func();
int main(){
static assert(is(typeof(main)==func);
return 0;
}
static assert(is(typeof(&main) == int function());
More straightforward and descriptive.
BTW:
writeln(typeid(int function(int))); //int()*
wtf?
That needs to be fixed, the runtime's TypeInfo.toString methods are not
always accurate (I think this warrants a bugzilla report).
-Steve
