I really want the compiler to be more specific about what worked
and what didn't in error messages. Check this out.
---
void foo(int a, string b) {}
void foo(string b) {}
void main() {
foo(10.2, "foo");
}
---
k.d(5): Error: None of the overloads of 'foo' are callable using
argument types (double, string), candidates are:
k.d(1): k.foo(int a, string b)
k.d(2): k.foo(string b)
A relevant piece is (double, string), what I passed to it, but it
is kinda mixed into the rest of the line. Moreover, what one
didn't match?
We already highlight the word "Error:". I propose we also
highlight stuff in the details lines, like this (pretending the
color tags actually came through)
k.d(1): k.foo(<red>int</red> a, <green>string</green> b)
k.d(2): k.foo(<red>string</red> b)
The first arg I passed never fit the first arg of the options,
they get red color. My string did pass one though, so it gets
green to highlight a partial match.
Doing this on template constraints too (along with formatting
them with some whitespace) would be huge toward making those
std.algorithm errors be readable as well.
Moreover, I wouldn't mind if the compiler had an error output
format that could spit out xml or something for computer
consumption, with the same level of detail (if not more). If I
were overhauling it all, I'd make all error messages inside the
compiler be marked up to the max, then the top layer prints them
appropriately for the device it is talking to (so disabling color
on pipes, pretty printing for users, etc)
But the specifics aren't as important as having the compiler just
somehow make it obvious at a glance what worked and what didn't.
It could also do:
k.d(1): k.foo(int a, string b)
^^^ ++++++
k.d(2): k.foo(string b)
^^^^^^
or whatever instead of (or addition to, let's not forget a lot of
people can't see color and the contrast on terminals may be quite
poor) color.
