On 9/13/2014 1:10 PM, eles wrote:
This presentation:
https://parasol.tamu.edu/people/bs/622-GP/C++14TAMU.pdf
He criticizes C99 VLA (slide 24) as being "an abomination"
But the surprise comes at the end (slide 57), where he also criticizes... the
static if as being "a total abomination". Well, this is D, I told myself.
Are those points valid?:
static if is a total abomination
• Unstructured, can do everything (just like goto)
• Complicates static analysis (AST-based tools get hard to write)
• Blocks the path for concepts
• Specifies how things are done (implementation)
• Is three slightly different “ifs” using a common syntax
• Redefines the meaning of common notation (such as { ... })
Yeah, well, we have many years of experience with "static if" and no apocalypse
has yet happened.
The proposal:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3329.pdf
Bjarne's rebuttal:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3613.pdf
C++ is adopting D features anyway. The constexpr proposals are looking a lot
like CTFE :-)
