On 04/14/2011 09:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:57:44 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 4/14/11 1:26 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:54:00 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 4/14/11 12:26 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Any particular reason why adding a new trait is more
desirable than modifying assert?
Absolutely!
Maybe I worded my question wrong. What I meant was what *is* the
particular reason.
Already mentioned it - enforce() is a prime example. Any similar facility
could make good use the feature.
Sure. However, not modifying assert means all asserts in my code should now be
rewritten to myassert, or whatever function is implemented. The huge benefit of
modifying assert is that we don't have to change any existing code.
I'm not saying adding a trait is not desirable, I just think it doesn't get us
to the right place on its own.
If I ever get around to hacking the compiler, I certainly will try this to see
how well it works.
A solution may be to carefully craft the new trait-using func's interface so
that upgrading can be automatised (rewriting tool for assert calls only);
possibly with constraints to make the tool's life easier, like "assertions
stands alone on their line".
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
