The Thermopylae excerpt of TDPL available online

[Denis Koroskin]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:32:51 +0300, Jason House  
<jason.james.house at gmail.com> wrote:

> Denis Koroskin Wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:12:51 +0300, Lars T. Kyllingstad
>> <public at kyllingen.nospamnet> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think he uses is(typeof(...)) in the text. The code snippets  
>> in
>> > question are marked "Note: normally the code below would not be
>> > included...", and I suppose he's put them there as a reminder for
>> > himself and Walter on what needs to be fixed before the book comes  
>> out.
>> >
>> > I agree with you, though, is(typeof(...)) is quite often misused, or  
>> at
>> > least used in an ugly way. Why not use __traits(compiles, ...)  
>> instead?
>> >
>> > -Lars
>>
>> ... which is at least as ugly.
>
> I disagree. Code that isn't readily understandable is uglier than  
> readable code. Certainly, __traits is ugly, but it is easier to  
> understand when readig code and easier to write.

I was talking about ugliness, not readability.

There are only 2 places where is(typeof(...)) feature is used:

assert(is(typeof(somePrimes) == int[])); // perfectly fine IMO
static assert(!is(typeof(a[length - 1]))); // misused, yes

BTW, typeof is a bit inconsistent with .stringof, .alignof, .sizeof etc  
(typeof(foo) but foo.sizeof).
Any chance this inconsistency is going to be fixed?

Either

assert(typeof(x + y) == int); -> assert(is((x + y).typeof == int));

Or

assert((x + y).sizeof == 4); -> assert(is(sizeof(x + y) == 4);