Are there any default dmd optimizations

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-02-26 20:53, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 2/25/2013 11:56 PM, foobar wrote:
>> DDoc isn't part of the language but rather part of the compiler,
>> nevertheless it
>> has its downsides.  [...]
>> unittest is worse,

[SNIP]

I'm going to use the big "if".

If the D compiler was built properly as a library, preferably in D. We 
could build all these features as separate tools (Ddoc, unit test) with 
the help of the compiler. These tools would then be included in the D 
distribution. Actually, the unit test support doesn't need the compiler 
as a library.

The build in unit tests support doesn't give much. It's easily 
implemented as a library with a simple tool to drive it. Example:

void unitTest (void delegate () dg);

static this ()
{
     unitTest({
         assert(true);
     });
}

It's then easy to add support for named unit tests:

void unitTest (string name, void delegate () dg);

static this ()
{
     unitTest("foo", {
         assert(true);
     });
}

If we then add some syntax sugar and allow a delegate to be passed after 
the parameter list we could have this:

static this ()
{
     unitTest("foo") {
         assert(true);
     }
}

If we then could support having arbitrary code at top level we would 
have this:

unitTest("foo") {
     assert(true);
}

Which is basically the same syntax as we have now but it's implemented 
as a library function. It can easily be extended with other similar 
functions doing slightly different things.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg