Uphill

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 5/24/2015 9:03 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 5/24/15 1:20 AM, weaselcat wrote:
>> IMO I think the worst thing C++ has done is blatantly ignore features
>> that have been 'killer' in D(see: the reaction to the static_if proposal)
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/n4461.html -- Andrei

The proposal:

Proposal: static if declaration
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3329.pdf

The rebuttal:

"Static If" Considered
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3613.pdf

Quoted from the rebuttal:

> The static if feature recently proposed for C++ [1, 2] is fundamentally flawed,
> and its adoption would be a disaster for the language. The feature provides a
> single syntax with three distinct semantics, depending on the context of use.
> The primary mechanism of these semantics is to avoid parsing in branches not
> taken. This will make programs harder to read, understand, maintain, and
> debug. It would also impede and possibly prevent the future development of
> other language features, such as concepts. Furthermore, the adoption of this
> feature would seriously compromise our ability to produce AST- based tools
> for C++, and therefore put C++ at a further disadvantage compared to other
> modern languages vis a vis tool support. It would make C++ a lower-level
> language.