Am 04.03.2011 09:51, schrieb Kevin Bealer:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu ([email protected])'s article
I see nothing wrong with the occasional forking conditioned by __ctfe.
Even today, code may fork an optimized but nonportable implementation of
some algorithm. The main requirement is that such forks are rare enough
to not cause undue maintenance burden.
Andrei
Regarding maintenance burden, it should be easy to test the correctness of
such code:
in a unit test:
enum a = f(...);
assert(a == f(...));
Kevin
based on the complexity of the "function" is can be much much more then
that... and the problem is that "normal" users tend to forget unit-tests...
the _ctfe thing is great because it solves problems in the real world
still better then before, but it easily opens the door to multi-branch
development with many different error-szenarios
the question is: is there a way to keep the _ctfe-branching under
control - i think as long as the ctfe functionality is very near to the
normal function world it will kept low by nature
