On 07/09/2017 05:14 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 02:01:08PM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 07/09/2017 12:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
It's no more of a hack than leaving assert(0) in release code.
I wouldn't argue that. I do argue it's a hack compared to the
principled solution of a bottom type. -- Andrei
I like out{ assert(0); } for pretty much the same reasons as Steven
lists. The biggest pro is that **the language already supports it*.
Contract syntax already is meant to signal intent, and assert(0) signals
"never gets here". You can't find a better solution than this. All the
other alternatives require adding even more baggage to an already
heavy language, or compiler voodoo to recognize a particular pattern of
defining a type. I'd say out{assert(0);} is the principled solution --
expressing something the current language can already express, and it's
the other alternatives that are "exotic".
Prioritizing "path of least resistense" over "this is cleaner and more
principled" is the hallmark of C++-style langauge design. Please,
please, please, let's stay away from that path.
