playing around with D

[Don Clugston]

Frits van Bommel wrote:
> 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).

Why is it important to distinguish between an error that's detected in a 
library, compared to one that is detected by the compiler? I would think 
that a library writer would have the decency to explain in the text of 
the error, that the error occurred in the library.

somefile.d(25): "SnazzySQL: Syntax error in SQL statement 'SELET * FROM 
CUSTOMERS'"

(You could be correct, it's just not obvious to me).