static if enhancement

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 28 June 2016 at 13:34:48 UTC, QAston wrote:
> On Monday, 27 June 2016 at 22:56:41 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> Agreed. The code outside of the static if should be compiled 
>> regardless, because it's not part of the static if/else at all 
>> and therefore has not been marked as conditionally compilable. 
>> But if we don't warn about unreachable code, then the code 
>> after the static if can clearly be optimized out because it's 
>> unreachable. So, Andrei's code would become legal as long as 
>> the only problem with the code after the static if was that it 
>> was unreachable.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
> The "allow unreachable code" solution has it's own limitations 
> compared to implicit-else-block. It doesn't allow varying 
> return type and differing declarations in the two blocks.
>

"The solution doesn't solve all problems, therefore the solution 
do not make things any better"

Nonsense.

> Allowing unreachable code also shares readibility problems 
> (because the example code is exactly the same for both 
> solutions), although it's conceptually easier to understand and 
> more consistent, so it's prefered.
>

We already allow unreachable code in various places for 
convenience reasons (or because the control flow analysis is 
fubared ?). Anyway, considered nobody complained about these 
cases ever, it is fair to assume that this is not a big deal.