On Monday, 11 September 2017 at 00:15:08 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2017 23:25:59 bitwise via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 8 September 2017 at 01:18:46 UTC, bitwise wrote:
> [...]
Does anyone even follow procedures of any kind for additions
this trivial, or do they just do pull requests and debate it
there?
Additions to the standard library on the size of new modules or
redesigned modules require a formal review in the main
newsgroup, but making changes to individual functions don't. If
you're looking to add something to the compiler, it could
simply be a PR, or it could require a DIP, depending on its
scope and what Walter and the other compiler devs think.
Ok, makes sense - Thanks. My own learning curve aside though, it
doesn't seem prohibitively time consuming to just try this myself
at some point.
In the case of your suggestion, I'd argue that it would simply
be better to improve the compiler-generated error messages if
they're not good enough.
I'm suggesting the opposite. I'm saying that the compiler
messages _are_ good enough, but that some functions in phobos
(emplace, for example) suppress them by using code like this:
`
static if(__traits(compiles, { ... }))
doIt();
else
static assert("custom error message");
`
So instead of a custom error message, you could simply run the
offending code through the compiler and output what it says. The
compiler's error message would most likely be much better and
more detailed than the custom one inserted by hand.
So essentially, the above would be refactored like this:
`
static if(__traits(compiles, { doIt(); }))
doIt();
else
static assert("Failed to invoke 'doIt': \n\t" ~
__traits(compilerError, { doIt(); }));
`
For the case of emplace() though, I'm wondering if that static if
even needs to be there at all - maybe not.
