On Monday, 11 September 2017 at 11:07:46 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
The dangerous thing about this suggestion is that it makes the
compilation errors DMD implements de facto part of the
semantics of the D language. I.e. improving compiler
diagnostics becomes a breaking language change.
I guess this is true if people start trying to parse the error
messages to extract details, but shouldn't there be some level of
standardization for tools anyways?
Thinking about this a little further though, I think the behavior
I had in mind could be implemented without changes.
My example from above could become this:
`
static if(!__traits(compiles, { doIt(); }))
{
// now, we know it's about to fail
pragma(msg, "doIt() failed because....");
}
// do it anyways and let the compiler output it's regular error
message
doIt();
`
