On 9/11/2013 10:14 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Thursday, 12 September 2013 at 05:04:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 9/11/2013 3:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm not against it, but I find it a very small improvement. Its user base is
exactly people who want to write and deploy a template without ever testing it
at all, ever. I have a hard time catering to that hypothetical crowd.
I'm against it because it makes for a rather bastardized semantic pass -
expensive to specify, write and debug, and as you point out of highly suspect
merit.
Isn't that more or less required already for IFTI ?
IFTI requires that the signature be analyzed, not the body.
