• Borislav Kosharov (15/15) Aug 19 2013 How do I know which functions are CTFE? I mean from the ones in
• bearophile (7/11) Aug 19 2013 While Don improve CTFE, the number of CTFE-able functions
• monarch_dodra (10/14) Aug 19 2013 What bearophile said. The amount of functions that can be CTFE'd
• bearophile (6/7) Aug 19 2013 Eventually it will be a good idea to add tests inside the Phobos
• monarch_dodra (8/15) Aug 19 2013 As we are seeing that functions are CTFE-able, we are addnig more

"Borislav Kosharov" <boby_dsm abv.bg> writes:

How do I know which functions are CTFE? I mean from the ones in 
std. I think there should be some icon or marker in the docs that 
indicates which function can be called during compilation.

I remember that there was a compile time bool that checks if the 
current function is called during compilation(__ctfe I think). 
But that is used only in the implementation of the function. Is 
there some kind of attribute( ctfe for ex) that forces the 
compiler to check if the function is  ctfe without using it 
anywhere.

I would really like to see the std documented in a more pleasant 
visual way. By using icons that replace the long declarations of 
the functions(something like MSDN maybe).

If such documenting tool exists please tell. I know for DDoc, 
bootDoc and others, but none of them(not sure) can replace 
attributes like  property, pure, static and others with icons.

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Borislav Kosharov:

 How do I know which functions are CTFE?

While Don improve CTFE, the number of CTFE-able functions 
increases.


 I know for DDoc, bootDoc and others, but none of them(not sure) 
 can replace attributes like  property, pure, static and others 
 with icons.

Perhaps with ddoc you can introduce simple macros that replace 
attributes with Unicode symbols or HTML links to icons.

Bye,
bearophile

"monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 19 August 2013 at 11:34:48 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 Borislav Kosharov:

 How do I know which functions are CTFE?

 While Don improve CTFE, the number of CTFE-able functions 
 increases.

What bearophile said. The amount of functions that can be CTFE'd 
is increasing everyday.

It *would* though be nice to document it as such (eg $(CTFEable) 
).

That said, it is also kind of like  safe and nothrow: For 
templates, it'll really depend on the arguments: For example, 
Appender!(char*) can be CTFE'd, but chances are it won't work for 
a struct with postblit.

But yes, I think we need to document better.

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

monarch_dodra:

 But yes, I think we need to document better.

Eventually it will be a good idea to add tests inside the Phobos 
unittests to make sure functions keep being CTFE-able. I have 
seen many regressions on this along the time.

Bye,
bearophile

"monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 19 August 2013 at 12:38:42 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 monarch_dodra:

 But yes, I think we need to document better.

 Eventually it will be a good idea to add tests inside the 
 Phobos unittests to make sure functions keep being CTFE-able. I 
 have seen many regressions on this along the time.

 Bye,
 bearophile

As we are seeing that functions are CTFE-able, we are addnig more 
and more CTFE tests (as well as  safe/pure).

The "problem" is that we started with simple implementations. 
These were a bit slower, but easilly safe/pure/ctfe. Then, we 
decided to "upgrade" these, doing more "under the hood" for 
speed. This usually broke all the above. We are now slowly 
repairing these.