Robert Fraser wrote:
Yeah, that one is a bit tricky, and what makes it worse is that it seems
officially sanctioned by Walter/Andrei as the "right way" to check if a
type supports some operations. Basically, if you have:
Oh, finally someone who shares my concerns! I fear the alternatives
would require to much thought and implementation/testing work, so that
our gurus prefer the current approach, despite that the semantic of the
code depends on silent compilation failures. (Just like SFINAE, maybe
even worse.)
is(typeof({ @@@ }()));
this means "if I made a function containing @@@, would that function
compile?". It's a hack which stems from the way the is expression works.
Your example doesn't compile right now. But if you use a string mixin,
the code doesn't even have to be syntactically/lexically valid:
is(typeof({ mixin("@@@"); }))
