• octo (3/3) Sep 16 2019 `static switch` would make a nice addition to `static if`,
• Max Haughton (4/7) Sep 16 2019 Could it be done as static foreach (blah; blah) {static if (...)
• Andrei Alexandrescu (16/20) Sep 16 2019 It doesn't seem to add power to the language. "static try" would be way
• jmh530 (9/15) Sep 16 2019 Wouldn't it add the comparable amount of power on the

octo <email example.org> writes:

`static switch` would make a nice addition to `static if`, 
`static foreach`, etc.

Any thoughts?

Max Haughton <maxhaton gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 17 September 2019 at 00:41:03 UTC, octo wrote:
 `static switch` would make a nice addition to `static if`, 
 `static foreach`, etc.

 Any thoughts?

Could it be done as static foreach (blah; blah) {static if (...) 
{} }? I don't know whether the amount of use it would get would 
be useful relative to the cost of implementing it

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

On 9/16/19 6:41 PM, octo wrote:
 `static switch` would make a nice addition to `static if`, `static 
 foreach`, etc.
 
 Any thoughts?

It doesn't seem to add power to the language. "static try" would be way 
better because a typical idiom is:

static if (__traits(compiles, { codecodecode }))
{
     codecodecode
}

It would be way nicer if we had something like:

static try
{
     codecodecode
}
catch (Exception e)
{
     // e.msg contains the compile-time error
}

jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 17 September 2019 at 01:05:28 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 9/16/19 6:41 PM, octo wrote:
 `static switch` would make a nice addition to `static if`, 
 `static foreach`, etc.
 
 Any thoughts?

 It doesn't seem to add power to the language. [snip]

Wouldn't it add the comparable amount of power on the 
compile-side that the run-time switch statement adds? Run-time 
switch can be reconstructed as a series of if statements, same 
thing as compile-time switch.

I am not sure I would use the feature, but it reminds me of some 
attributes being preprended with   and others not. It's just one 
of those quirks of the language.