AJG wrote:
<snip>
> For example, why couldn't I do something like the following:
> 
> void Foo(...) in {
>     static assert(_arguments.length > 1);
>     static if (_arguments[0] == typeid(float)) {
>         pragma(msg, "Warning, float will be truncated to int.");
>     }
> }

Why would you want to truncate floats but pass all other types through unchanged?

If OTOH you want the first argument to be an int, then you would do

    void Foo(int bar, ...) {
    }

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Hi,

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> AJG wrote:
> <snip>
> 
>> For example, why couldn't I do something like the following:
>>
>> void Foo(...) in {
>>     static assert(_arguments.length > 1);
>>     static if (_arguments[0] == typeid(float)) {
>>         pragma(msg, "Warning, float will be truncated to int.");
>>     }
>> }
> 
> 
> Why would you want to truncate floats but pass all other types through unchanged?
> 
> If OTOH you want the first argument to be an int, then you would do
> 
>     void Foo(int bar, ...) {
>     }
> 
> Stewart.
> 

No, the example was trivial and not intended to do anything sensible.

The point was to show that variadic functions should be resolved at compile time so that static checks can be done. Right now, those checks must:

a) Occur at runtime.
b) Occur every time a function is called.

This is completely unnecessary. Everything (AFAIK) needed to convert the process to compile-time is there. Functions cannot be called with a dynamically-built parameter list. Therefore, why treat it as if it were one?

I think the solution lies with what the others suggested, i.e., some form of implicit templating.

Cheers,
--AJG.