playing around with D

[Frits van Bommel]

Don Clugston wrote:
> 
> Given how common static assert(0) is, I wonder if something could be 
> done to improve the error message quality in the
> "static assert(0, "xxx")" case?
> 
> file.d(58): static assert  (0) is false, "xxx"
> 
> Maybe drop out the "(0) is false" bit, since it doesn't seem to add much 
> value, changing it to something like:
> 
> file.d(58): static assert, "xxx"
> 
> Or even drop the 'static assert' bit entirely, and just display "xxx".

I don't think dropping the 'static assert' bit is a good idea (at least, 
without replacing it with something of similar meaning). I think it's a 
good thing that static asserts are clearly distinct from 
compiler-generated errors. The exact wording could be different but it 
should be clear that this is an error because the author of the code 
explicitly _made_ it one, not because of any inherent language rule 
(other than the one on static assert, obviously).