• Ignacious (12/12) Jan 13 2017 It would be EXTREMELY helpful if dmd would give a better result
• Adam D. Ruppe (3/4) Jan 13 2017 Yes, I agree entirely. This would be a HUGE usability bonus, far
• Ignacious (7/11) Jan 13 2017 And it should be very simple to do. as the compiler checks the
• Stefan Koch (5/18) Jan 22 2017 Actually it's not as easy since there can be many

Ignacious <I.D.T ProjectMaya.com> writes:

It would be EXTREMELY helpful if dmd would give a better result 
than

main.d(30): Error: template main.Do cannot deduce function from 
argument types !(1, string, int)(2, "adf"), candidates are:
main.d(6):        main.Do(int x, string y, alias Q)(int z, string 
q)

Like, which arguments actually pass and which ones fail, etc.

I know we are all suppose to be geniuses here but I flunked out 
of that class. Seems like the compiler knows where the error is 
so why can't it inform me a bit better than basically telling me 
there is an error and which lines it occurred on(cause that is 
all it really does in practice).

Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 22:22:12 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
 Like, which arguments actually pass and which ones fail, etc.

Yes, I agree entirely. This would be a HUGE usability bonus, far 
better than most the other things people work on...

Ignacious <I.D.T ProjectMaya.com> writes:

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 22:57:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 22:22:12 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
 Like, which arguments actually pass and which ones fail, etc.

 Yes, I agree entirely. This would be a HUGE usability bonus, 
 far better than most the other things people work on...

And it should be very simple to do. as the compiler checks the 
arguments it reaches the argument that it finds invalid and it 
simply has to calculate the length in to the string to put 
something like a >> in front of the argument in the error string. 
Or simply give the index in to the argument or template list.

Probably take a good programmer less than an hour to do.

Stefan Koch <uplink.coder googlemail.com> writes:

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 23:22:22 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
 On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 22:57:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 22:22:12 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
 Like, which arguments actually pass and which ones fail, etc.

 Yes, I agree entirely. This would be a HUGE usability bonus, 
 far better than most the other things people work on...

 And it should be very simple to do. as the compiler checks the 
 arguments it reaches the argument that it finds invalid and it 
 simply has to calculate the length in to the string to put 
 something like a >> in front of the argument in the error 
 string. Or simply give the index in to the argument or template 
 list.

 Probably take a good programmer less than an hour to do.

Actually it's not as easy since there can be many 
overloads/definitions of a template and printing out additional 
information for the failing arguments will clutter the few even 
more.