http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10480
--- Comment #2 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-06-26 17:20:12 PDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > I'm unhappy with making this an error or a warning. It's perfectly reasonable > to write code that tests something that is (at compile time) always true or > false. This can happen: > > 1. in generic code > > 2. in reasonable attempts to avoid versioning > > 3. D code idiomatically does quite a bit more at compile time than other > languages do. This change would make that more difficult. > > 4. in temporary debugging code, like: > > if (0 && condition) ... Thank you for your answer. I have opened this issue because: - I think a bit of static analysis from the compiler goes a long way avoiding common simple programmer mistakes. - I think being aware of a problem is important even when I don't know how to solve it, so having this enhancement request in Bugzilla is important to remember it. - In both the article that has spurred this ER and in the warning in the Visual Studio, some intelligent persons think it's a common bug and a good to have warning for C++. I have now gained some experience on how D is designed and how you want it to be designed (nearly no warnings, avoid false positives as much as possible, help generic code and compile time coding), so I understand such problems. If you want I will close down this issue. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------