On 09/13/2014 10:10 PM, eles wrote:
...
But the surprise comes at the end (slide 57), where he also
criticizes... the static if ...
Are those points valid?:
...
• Unstructured, can do everything (just like goto)
• Complicates static analysis (AST-based tools get hard to write)
• Blocks the path for concepts
• Specifies how things are done (implementation)
• Is three slightly different “ifs” using a common syntax
• Redefines the meaning of common notation (such as { ... })
In D, { ... } has this other meaning even without static if and I would
say similar syntax rather than common syntax and leave out the pointless
reference to goto.
Otherwise, yes. In exchange you get static if. :o)
However, as Peter points out, static if as implemented in DMD currently
has some serious issues:
static if(!is(typeof(x))) enum y=2;
static if(!is(typeof(y))) enum x=1;
This code is ambiguous: It could define either x or y.
If the two static if's are defined in different modules that import each
other, then the order those modules are passed to DMD on the command
line can influence which of x or y ends up being defined.
The problem is that DMD does not seem to have a coherent way of
resolving dependencies. (My own project does not compile with versions
of DMD after 2.060, and even with 2.060, I had to move code around
randomly. I think it will be easily fixed to compile again only when
analysis dependency management is fixed in a good enough way.)
