On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 14:31:40 -0700, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> It's not hard to write a CTFE version of writef/writeln/etc., that takes
> the format argument at compile-time, since std.format itself is already
> CTFE-able.
i didn't know that (didn't checked, actually), so i rewro
On Sunday, 12 April 2015 at 21:34:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 02:33:03PM +, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 14:18:21 +, JR wrote:
> But the compiler has all the pieces of information needed to
> see
> it's wrong, doesn't it?
no, it does
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 02:33:03PM +, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 14:18:21 +, JR wrote:
>
> > But the compiler has all the pieces of information needed to see
> > it's wrong, doesn't it?
>
> no, it doesn't. compiler doesn't know about `std.format.format` an
On Sunday, 12 April 2015 at 14:18:23 UTC, JR wrote:
I was chatting with a friend and showed him how printf("%s")
printed random memory in C
I'm pretty sure modern C compilers will warn about something as
obviously wrong as this.
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 14:18:21 +, JR wrote:
> But the compiler has all the pieces of information needed to see it's
> wrong, doesn't it?
no, it doesn't. compiler doesn't know about `std.format.format` and it's
special abilities. while it is possible to add such checks to the
compiler, it will
I was chatting with a friend and showed him how printf("%s")
printed random memory in C, whereas writefln("%s") in D threw an
Exception upon execution. It's probably not a completely fair
comparison but that's a different topic.
I admit to being confused as to why it passed compilation at all
