On 5/24/2015 9:03 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/24/15 1:20 AM, weaselcat wrote:
IMO I think the worst thing C++ has done is blatantly ignore features
that have been 'killer' in D(see: the reaction to the static_if proposal)
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/n4461.html -- Andrei
The proposal:
Proposal: static if declaration
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3329.pdf
The rebuttal:
"Static If" Considered
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3613.pdf
Quoted from the rebuttal:
The static if feature recently proposed for C++ [1, 2] is fundamentally flawed,
and its adoption would be a disaster for the language. The feature provides a
single syntax with three distinct semantics, depending on the context of use.
The primary mechanism of these semantics is to avoid parsing in branches not
taken. This will make programs harder to read, understand, maintain, and
debug. It would also impede and possibly prevent the future development of
other language features, such as concepts. Furthermore, the adoption of this
feature would seriously compromise our ability to produce AST- based tools
for C++, and therefore put C++ at a further disadvantage compared to other
modern languages vis a vis tool support. It would make C++ a lower-level
language.
