CTFE Status

[Marc Schütz via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 4 November 2016 at 01:19:36 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 15:44:20 +0000, Marc Schütz wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 at 17:41:35 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
>>> I intend to keep the current implemntation around as a 
>>> fallback.
>>> For things that are used rarely.
>>> like floating point and others :)
>> 
>> Is that a good idea? It means that there will be tons of 
>> really complex code that is rarely if ever used and therefore 
>> gets no testing...
>
> I think the intent is that the current implementation will 
> always be used for specific features, not that the compiler 
> will attempt to run CTFE with the bytecode version and resort 
> to the previous implementation if something goes wrong.

In this case better make sure to remove the resulting dead code 
from the old interpreter, otherwise it will become and 
unmaintainable mess in the long run.