On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 22:14:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/30/2014 2:34 PM, Meta wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 21:04:19 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 4/30/2014 1:38 PM, Meta wrote:
Also, while we're thinking about static unittest, what about
contracts? I've
seen Bearophile suggest it quite a few times, and I agree
that it'd be very
useful to have contracts that are able to check a subset of
function
contracts/object invariants at compile time.
Already have them - template constraints.
Your function needs to be a template for that.
Adding () turns a function into a function template. Also,
static asserts.
Also, object invariants.
Easily handled with static asserts.
Just a thought, this might be a good idea for the problem of not
knowing which condition fails when a template instantiation
fails, i.e.:
auto reduce(alias fun, Args...)(Args args)
//We don't know which condition fails when this template fails to
instantiate
if (Args.length > 0 && Args.length <= 2 && isIterable!(Args[$ -
1]))
{
//...
}
Instead we could do:
auto reduce(alias fun, Args...)(Args args)
static in
{
assert(Args.length > 0);
assert(Args.length <= 2);
assert(isIterable!(Args[$ - 1]));
}
body
{
//...
}
And the error message which show you exactly which condition
failed. You could also just use static asserts in the contract,
but the topic of this thread is about `static unittest`, which is
more or less redundant as well.
