digitalmars.D - is expression
- Ellery Newcomer (7/7) Jun 24 2010 Hey,
- Andrei Alexandrescu (3/10) Jun 24 2010 My mistake, a typeof should wrap the expression.
- Ellery Newcomer (2/15) Jun 24 2010 Ah, very good. Maybe the compiler should bug out on expressions?
- Clemens (2/15) Jun 24 2010 ...and this is exactly why we need meta.compiles(...) or something equiv...
- Andrei Alexandrescu (3/18) Jun 24 2010 Yes, such an addition shouldn't interfere.
Hey, in std.container, line 2623, I'm seeing static if (is(_store.insertBack(value))) The spec doesn't mention allowing expressions as far as I can remember, so what's the deal? Yes, the argument is ambiguous with type at parse time, but it has to get converted to an expression at some point. Is allowing expressions in is expression a definite keeper?
Jun 24 2010
On 06/24/2010 10:01 AM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:Hey, in std.container, line 2623, I'm seeing static if (is(_store.insertBack(value))) The spec doesn't mention allowing expressions as far as I can remember, so what's the deal? Yes, the argument is ambiguous with type at parse time, but it has to get converted to an expression at some point. Is allowing expressions in is expression a definite keeper?My mistake, a typeof should wrap the expression. Andrei
Jun 24 2010
On 06/24/2010 10:02 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:On 06/24/2010 10:01 AM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:Ah, very good. Maybe the compiler should bug out on expressions?Hey, in std.container, line 2623, I'm seeing static if (is(_store.insertBack(value))) The spec doesn't mention allowing expressions as far as I can remember, so what's the deal? Yes, the argument is ambiguous with type at parse time, but it has to get converted to an expression at some point. Is allowing expressions in is expression a definite keeper?My mistake, a typeof should wrap the expression. Andrei
Jun 24 2010
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:On 06/24/2010 10:01 AM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:...and this is exactly why we need meta.compiles(...) or something equivalent. That proposal had such an overwhelming backing by the community; what happened to it? There never was an official comment on it AFAIR. Such an addition should be fine even with TDPL out since it doesn't break anything, shouldn't it?Hey, in std.container, line 2623, I'm seeing static if (is(_store.insertBack(value))) The spec doesn't mention allowing expressions as far as I can remember, so what's the deal? Yes, the argument is ambiguous with type at parse time, but it has to get converted to an expression at some point. Is allowing expressions in is expression a definite keeper?My mistake, a typeof should wrap the expression.
Jun 24 2010
On 06/24/2010 10:48 AM, Clemens wrote:Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:Yes, such an addition shouldn't interfere. AndreiOn 06/24/2010 10:01 AM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:...and this is exactly why we need meta.compiles(...) or something equivalent. That proposal had such an overwhelming backing by the community; what happened to it? There never was an official comment on it AFAIR. Such an addition should be fine even with TDPL out since it doesn't break anything, shouldn't it?Hey, in std.container, line 2623, I'm seeing static if (is(_store.insertBack(value))) The spec doesn't mention allowing expressions as far as I can remember, so what's the deal? Yes, the argument is ambiguous with type at parse time, but it has to get converted to an expression at some point. Is allowing expressions in is expression a definite keeper?My mistake, a typeof should wrap the expression.
Jun 24 2010