My Little Dustmite: Bisect is Magic

[John Colvin]

On Saturday, 27 July 2019 at 16:59:36 UTC, Ethan wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 July 2019 at 16:36:35 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> Again, in this example the compiler does provide context that 
>> assert fails at line 11. Function bodies are compiled at a 
>> later stage and it doesn't make sense to compile them if top 
>> level declarations failed to compile
>
> Your definition of context is incomplete.
>
> I cannot think of a single programmer that wants to hit compile 
> every time they fix one single compiler error just to find 
> another single compile error.
>
> Stopping at one static assert is undesired behavior in a 
> production environment.
>
> If this behavior is by design, it's terrible design.

How would you propose changing the compiler such that you got the 
"right" amount of errors, without any spurious ones? IIRC the 
current design "poisons" anything derived from an error to 
minimise error spam.

In D it's very easy for one little typo to invalidate vast 
amounts of code, which leads to massive cascading errors.