Ranges

[Steve Teale]

grauzone Wrote:

> Robert Fraser wrote:
> > Yeah, that one is a bit tricky, and what makes it worse is that it seems 
> > officially sanctioned by Walter/Andrei as the "right way" to check if a 
> > type supports some operations. Basically, if you have:
> 
> Oh, finally someone who shares my concerns! I fear the alternatives 
> would require to much thought and implementation/testing work, so that 
> our gurus prefer the current approach, despite that the semantic of the 
> code depends on silent compilation failures. (Just like SFINAE, maybe 
> even worse.)
> 
> > is(typeof({ @@@ }()));
> > 
> > this means "if I made a function containing @@@, would that function 
> > compile?". It's a hack which stems from the way the is expression works.
> 
> Your example doesn't compile right now. But if you use a string mixin, 
> the code doesn't even have to be syntactically/lexically valid:
> 
> is(typeof({ mixin("@@@"); }))
> 

Kind of like the oomigooli bird. Flies round in ever decreasing circles and eventually disappears up its own arsehole.