On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:31:43 -0500, Jesse Phillips
<jessekphillip...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 03:22:08 UTC, 1100110 wrote:
So I guess in the end I am proposing a change.
A change that I cannot see breaking backwards compatibility while also
shortening code duplication.
It also seems much more 'intuitive' to me.
version(Windows) version(DigitalMars) {}
made me think twice to make sure I knew what it was doing.
What do you guys think? If this was implemented, how could it break
backwards compatibility?
Is something like this worth a change?
Are there any drawbacks to this idea?
This "issue" comes once in a while. The suggested solution:
[snip]
Not necessarily more concise but it can add description to what the
actual version being created.
That is true, and I do recall that version = something; now that I think
about it.
It just seems to me that version statements are essentially booleans, and
could be easily rewritten as:
static if(true || false || false) { } by the compiler, similar to how (I
*think*) certain binary operators are rewritten.
(I'm just going by what I hear, I'm not really a compiler kinda guy...)
It would make sense to me to be able to use boolean operators on what is
essentially
a true/false statement.
I'd be willing to see if I can hack together support for it, as a proof of
concept,
but I wanted to see if it would be blatantly shot down first.
So... What I'd really like to know is: Would *you* welcome such a change?
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
