On 5/2/2015 11:17 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> Back with some data, this change indeed discovered one bug in SDC. This was not
> the first one I'm aware of the confusing behavior, and looking for it in PR,
> still we have at least one case left.

I don't doubt that the change will discover a bug here and there.

On 5/2/2015 7:37 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Friday, 1 May 2015 at 19:45:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> I suspect this kind of change and check would be appropriate for a D linter,
>> and not be part of the core language.
>
> Yes it would fit nicely into a static analyzer, but DMD is currently the only
> semantic analyzer we have.


I know. The warnings were supposed to be a static analyzer, but quickly turned into core language behavior.

On 5/2/2015 4:06 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 May 2015 at 09:20:50 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> The only problem I see with making the change has been a couple
>> of very vocal folks
>> [...]
>> (since it's Andrei and Cybershadow who are complaining)
>
> "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

Ironic, as I recently watched the series "Oppenheimer".

On Saturday, 2 May 2015 at 14:37:08 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Friday, 1 May 2015 at 19:45:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> I suspect this kind of change and check would be appropriate for a D linter, and not be part of the core language.
>
> Yes it would fit nicely into a static analyzer, but DMD is currently the only semantic analyzer we have.

dscanner exists
hopefully SDC will improve D tooling.

On Sat, 02 May 2015 19:56:49 +0000, weaselcat wrote:

> On Saturday, 2 May 2015 at 14:37:08 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> On Friday, 1 May 2015 at 19:45:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> I suspect this kind of change and check would be appropriate for a D linter, and not be part of the core language.
>>
>> Yes it would fit nicely into a static analyzer, but DMD is currently the only semantic analyzer we have.
> 
> dscanner exists

dscanner doesn't do full semantic analysis. and you need that, with full type inference, to catch all cases.

On Friday, 10 April 2015 at 10:14:43 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> if (arr) -> if (!arr.empty)
>
> It's much clearer and also what you need to write when you work with ranges.

Maybe rename it "opEmpty" then.

Try to keep language protocols and library conventions separate.

On Mon, 04 May 2015 10:27:47 +0000, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

> On Friday, 10 April 2015 at 10:14:43 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> if (arr) -> if (!arr.empty)
>>
>> It's much clearer and also what you need to write when you work with ranges.
> 
> Maybe rename it "opEmpty" then.
> 
> Try to keep language protocols and library conventions separate.

or at least move it to "object.d", so i don't have to import "std.range" to get this check working.