"Vladimir Panteleev"  wrote in message news:swjdkyjsurpjdqrvqonq@forum.dlang.org...

> I don't know. The one in std.exception is probably due to an array being used as a condition for enforce.

Yep, that's not nice.  From what I can see the warning in the template constraint is ignored, and so the call succeeds.  I don't know how to force a failure there with a warning. 

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 22:44:22 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> On 4/29/15 8:35 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> Occasionally I'm using if (auto ary = func()), despite the fact that
>> the semantics are wrong, but it's nice and short and works as long a
>> func always returns null instead of empty slices.
> 
> I wonder if it's possible to fix this, as it is, IMO, the only legitimate drawback of this change. Could we make the following work?
> 
> if((auto ary = func()).length)
> 
> -Steve



I would have though this would work:

if(auto x = foo(), !x.empty)

On 4/30/15 4:46 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "Vladimir Panteleev"  wrote in message
> news:ajrysqkjmlqjlmkipboz@forum.dlang.org...
>
>> On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 at 19:15:46 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>> wrote:
>> > but std.allocator is definitely not your average code
>>
>> OK, I'm tired of hearing this argument.
>
> It's valid though.

I think we need to stop here. I'll make the PR today for reverting this language change. We can't handle D like a semester science project, because for as long as we do we won't have credibility.

This trickle of teeny-bit breaking changes for the sake of touted benefits must stop.

In the future please do not make breaking changes without my and Walter's approval.


Thanks,

Andrei

On 30 April 2015 at 17:08, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 4/30/15 4:46 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>>
>> "Vladimir Panteleev"  wrote in message news:ajrysqkjmlqjlmkipboz@forum.dlang.org...
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 at 19:15:46 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> > but std.allocator is definitely not your average code
>>>
>>> OK, I'm tired of hearing this argument.
>>
>>
>> It's valid though.
>
>
> I think we need to stop here. I'll make the PR today for reverting this language change. We can't handle D like a semester science project, because for as long as we do we won't have credibility.
>
> This trickle of teeny-bit breaking changes for the sake of touted benefits must stop.
>
> In the future please do not make breaking changes without my and Walter's approval.
>
>

At least enforce a behaviour in the frontend if you are going to revert.

On 4/30/15 8:51 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> At least enforce a behaviour in the frontend if you are going to revert.

How do you mean that? -- Andrei

"Andrei Alexandrescu"  wrote in message news:mhtggg$26b5$1@digitalmars.com...

> I think we need to stop here. I'll make the PR today for reverting this language change. We can't handle D like a semester science project, because for as long as we do we won't have credibility.

> This trickle of teeny-bit breaking changes for the sake of touted benefits must stop.

This breaking change prevents hard-to-find bugs.  The fact that you needed to make trivial changes to 39 places in std.allocator doesn't negate this. 

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

>
> This trickle of teeny-bit breaking changes for the sake of touted benefits must stop.
>
>
This is how you improve the language.  You can disagree with the touted benefits, but without changes of this sort the language will never get better.

On 4/30/15 9:50 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu"  wrote in message
> news:mhtggg$26b5$1@digitalmars.com...
>
>> I think we need to stop here. I'll make the PR today for reverting
>> this language change. We can't handle D like a semester science
>> project, because for as long as we do we won't have credibility.
>
>> This trickle of teeny-bit breaking changes for the sake of touted
>> benefits must stop.
>
> This breaking change prevents hard-to-find bugs.  The fact that you
> needed to make trivial changes to 39 places in std.allocator doesn't
> negate this.

Nothing negates that. It's a judgment call. Please let's stop here. Thanks. -- Andrei

On 4/30/15 10:10 AM, Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com <mailto:digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     This trickle of teeny-bit breaking changes for the sake of touted
>     benefits must stop.
>
>
> This is how you improve the language.

No. -- Andrei

On Thursday, 30 April 2015 at 11:43:06 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 April 2015 at 02:51:33 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> OK, I'm tired of hearing this argument.
>
> Distinction between null and empty can be done, the problem is it doesn't fly in mainstream.

if (myslice is []) would wheck for null slice.