http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8713
Don <clugd...@yahoo.com.au> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |clugd...@yahoo.com.au
--- Comment #1 from Don <clugd...@yahoo.com.au> 2012-09-24 05:04:56 PDT ---
What you are asking for is this:
(a) things wrapped in if (__ctfe) don't get fully semantically checked when the
function is compiled.
(Specifically, anything which needs a compile-time value doesn't get checked
for 'readable at compile time').
(b) CTFE functions never get compiled. When a template is encountered inside a
CTFE function, it is created during execution of the function.
Your enhancement request acts as if (a) is the problem, but it isn't. (a) is an
intentional restriction to protect us from (b) which is very, very nasty. It's
not merely implementation issues (although they are formidable). Fundamentally
it violates the independence of the compiler passes, which is crucial to the
design of D (you always finish one pass before you start the next).
Just to name one problem: accepting this request would make it impossible to
have a clean JIT-based implementation of CTFE. Because of this I think it
closes more doors than it opens.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
