playing around with D

[Don Clugston]

BCS wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
>> 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).
> 
> 1) Never trust convention or decency to make people do something that is 
> *needed*

IMHO, it's not *needed*, just nice.

> 2) compile errors are usually the fault of the lib, asserts are the 
> fault of the user. Also the asserts will probably be more useful when 
> trying to fix things.

I'm only talking about the specific case of static assert(0, "xxx");
-- giving the library writer an option to suppress the "static assert" 
message.