On 03/07/2011 07:20 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday 06 March 2011 21:57:30 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Jonathan M Davis"<jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2293.1299467610.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Sunday 06 March 2011 18:08:49 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yah, thing is people work on stuff they care about, not the most urgent
stuff - surprise! :o) As such we don't have a ton of proposals for
networking and xml, but we do have one (and I won't argue it's a bad
one) for rehashing a module that basically worked.
I'm not sure I'd say the current std.path "basically works", but I get what
you mean.
I _was_ thinking of putting forward a new proposal which includes the
unit testing functionality that assertPred had which won't end up in an
improved
assert,
Speaking of which: Now that assertPred has been rejected on the grounds of
an improved assert that doesn't yet exist, what is the current status of
the improved assert?
There's an enhancement request for it:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5547
I have no idea of any work is actually being done on it or not. It hasn't
actually been assigned to anyone yet, for whatever that's worth. Honestly, it
wouldn't surprise me if it doesn't happen for a while. I'm not sure that anyone
who is capable of doing it is particularly motivated to do it (though I'm not
sure that they're _not_ either). It was clear that a number of people wanted
assert to be smarter rather than having assertPred, but it isn't clear that
assert is going to be made smarter any time soon. I suspect that it will be a
while before it's done. We'll have to wait and see though.
IIUC:
The problem is this feature belongs to the category of things that cannot be
implemented by any D programmer, in D, as a lib feature, even by an expert in
the domain.
It needs to get a representation of the unevaluated expression beeing asserted,
meaning compiler support, meaning hard low-level C/++ and a great knowledge of
the compiler architecture, esp the construction of the AST. If there was a way
to "quote" D expressions, and get their representation at runtime, then we
could do it ourselves (would imply some perf penalty, but I consider this worth
compared to the terrible expressive power gained, and in fact totally
neglectible for an assert statement).
Please tell me where I'm wrong.
With the same power, I would implement at once 'varWrite':
int x = 3; s = square(x);
varWrite("value: 'x' --> square: 's'");
// --> "value: 3 --> square: 9"
or even maybe:
int x = 3;
varWrite("value: 'x' --> square: 'x*x'");
// --> "value: 3 --> square: 9"
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
