www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - Conditional nothrow/safe/nogc/etc?

reply Matt Elkins <notreal fake.com> writes:
Is there any way to specify that a generic function is 
conditionally nothrow (or other function decorators), based on 
whether the template instantiation is nothrow? I'm looking for 
something akin to C++'s noexcept(noexcept(<expr>)), e.g.:

template <class T> void foo() noexcept(noexcept(T())) {}

I don't see anything about it on the functions grammar page 
(https://dlang.org/spec/function.html). I do see something to do 
with nothrow_ on the std.traits page, but I'm not sure how to use 
it to achieve this or whether that is the right approach.

My actual use case is a non-generic method opAssign inside of a 
generic struct.
Jan 29 2016
parent reply Rikki Cattermole <alphaglosined gmail.com> writes:
On 30/01/16 6:17 PM, Matt Elkins wrote:

 Is there any way to specify that a generic function is conditionally
 nothrow (or other function decorators), based on whether the template
 instantiation is nothrow? I'm looking for something akin to C++'s
 noexcept(noexcept(<expr>)), e.g.:

 template <class T> void foo() noexcept(noexcept(T())) {}

 I don't see anything about it on the functions grammar page
 (https://dlang.org/spec/function.html). I do see something to do with
 nothrow_ on the std.traits page, but I'm not sure how to use it to
 achieve this or whether that is the right approach.

 My actual use case is a non-generic method opAssign inside of a generic
 struct.


templated functions have attribute inference. Meaning if it can be 
nothrow it will be.
Regarding your real use case, again struct if templated so it should be 
inferred.
Jan 29 2016
parent reply Matt Elkins <notreal fake.com> writes:
On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 05:25:49 UTC, Rikki Cattermole 
wrote:

 On 30/01/16 6:17 PM, Matt Elkins wrote:

 [...]


 templated functions have attribute inference. Meaning if it can 
 be nothrow it will be.
 Regarding your real use case, again struct if templated so it 
 should be inferred.


Convenient! Thanks!
Jan 29 2016
parent reply "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn" <digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com> writes:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 05:37:07AM +0000, Matt Elkins via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:

 On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 05:25:49 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:

On 30/01/16 6:17 PM, Matt Elkins wrote:

[...]


templated functions have attribute inference. Meaning if it can be
nothrow it will be.
Regarding your real use case, again struct if templated so it should
be inferred.


 
 Convenient! Thanks!


A common idiom that we use is to write an attributed unittest to verify
that the function itself is  safe/etc.. This way, if instantiated with
safe/etc. types, the template will also be safe/etc., but if
instantiated with an unsafe type, it will correspondingly be unsafe
(instead of failing to compile if you wrote  safe on the template). The
unittest ensures that you do not accidentally introduce un- safe code
into the template and cause *all* instantiations to become un- safe.

	auto mySafeCode(T)(T t) { ... }

	 safe unittest
	{
		auto x = mySafeCode(safeValue);
	}


T

-- 
Why are you blatanly misspelling "blatant"? -- Branden Robinson
Jan 29 2016
parent Matt Elkins <notreal fake.com> writes:
On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 05:57:34 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 A common idiom that we use is to write an attributed unittest 
 to verify that the function itself is  safe/etc.. This way, if 
 instantiated with safe/etc. types, the template will also be 
 safe/etc., but if instantiated with an unsafe type, it will 
 correspondingly be unsafe (instead of failing to compile if you 
 wrote  safe on the template). The unittest ensures that you do 
 not accidentally introduce un- safe code into the template and 
 cause *all* instantiations to become un- safe.

 	auto mySafeCode(T)(T t) { ... }

 	 safe unittest
 	{
 		auto x = mySafeCode(safeValue);
 	}


 T


Seems sound. Thanks!
Jan 29 2016