On Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 04:32:02 UTC, 1100110 wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:31:43 -0500, Jesse Phillips
<[email protected]> wrote:
That is true, and I do recall that version = something; now
that I think about it.
It just seems to me that version statements are essentially
booleans, and could be easily rewritten as:
static if(true || false || false) { } by the compiler, similar
to how (I *think*) certain binary operators are rewritten.
(I'm just going by what I hear, I'm not really a compiler kinda
guy...)
It would make sense to me to be able to use boolean operators
on what is essentially
a true/false statement.
I'd be willing to see if I can hack together support for it, as
a proof of concept,
but I wanted to see if it would be blatantly shot down first.
So... What I'd really like to know is: Would *you* welcome such
a change?
This proposal has made a quarterly appearance since the earliest
days of D1... and heavens yes, would I welcome it. While the
standard (version = Somethingable) approach is actually fine in
many cases (self documenting, puts all the logic in one place,
etc etc) it is also quite overkill in many cases (the logic
matters exactly once, the logic branches differently in different
places, etc etc). It's the same as every toolbox having
different types of screwdrivers. Yes they do the same thing, but
in different circumstances one will be clearly preferable over
another.
-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
