[OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/9/15 12:58 AM, Kagamin wrote:
> On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 22:22:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 6/8/15 1:25 PM, ponce wrote:
>>> C++'s constexpr looks broken because everything must be marked
>>> constexpre, which defeats the purpose of having compile-time code
>>> looking like runtime code. But I never had the pleasure to use it.
>>
>> Yeah, it's sadly quite björked. Scott Meyers and I looked at the
>> feature and the logical conclusion for a guideline was "Speculatively
>> mark everything in sight as constexpr". That doesn't quite scale. --
>> Andrei
>
> Same as with @safe @nogc @nothrow @pure.

No, these are attributes that change the function's type; constexpr does 
not. (Plus, in D the attributes may be applied in bulk with ":" or "{}").

> If you don't have ctfeability
> expressed in function's contract, you have no idea how you can modify
> the function's implementation so that to not break other people's code.
> Sorry for making c++ look cute again :)

I guess you could do a lot worse than using a unittest to make sure a 
function is CTFEable.


Andrei