On Saturday, 31 October 2015 at 08:38:01 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/30/2015 7:39 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
Please let me know what you think.
Thanks for writing this. I think it's a very creative solution.
I've used the static assert technique you mentioned in the DIP.
It solves the first part of the problem, that of shifting the
detection of the error from the usage of the struct to the
definition of the struct.
The remaining problem is the suppression of the error message
detailing why it failed the test. Perhaps a more general
solution is a __traits(compiles, expr) feature that does not
suppress error messages.
Interesting. Like this perhaps?
struct Struct : isInputRange ->
static assert(__traits(compilesNoSupress, isInputRange!Struct));
struct Struct
//...
Atila
