May 20, 2008
An example where static assert is used is, for example, at the top of a module to signal that the module is not available if some condition is not met:

---
module foo;

version(Tango) {
} else {
  static assert("Sorry, you need to use Tango with this module");
}

// rest of the code...
---

Now, imagine an IDE that wants to singal errors in that file. Obviously, if the user didn't define "Tango" as a version identifier, that static assert will be marked as an error. But it isn't really an error... The file contains no errors. The error just exists when that particular module is used with the "wrong" version.

I was thinking maybe a pragma could be added instead of a static assert:

---
module foo;

version(Tango) {
} else {
  pragma(moduleUnavailable, "Sorry, you need to use Tango");
}
---

and the compiler would print "Moudle foo unavailable: Sorry, you need to use Tango". (note: the pragma name is the first one that came into my mind, please just discuss the idea :-))

An IDE could just ignore those pragmas and stop signaling errors for that module.

I know, the possibility of some feature being introduced in the language just because of an IDE need must be zero, I just wanted to know what you think about this. Maybe the intention is also clearer (again, it's not an error, the module is unavailable).
May 20, 2008
What is the benefit above pragma(msg, ...)?

I'm not sure it's a bad thing the IDE points this out as an error. When you're looking at this module it is likely that you are going to use it and then you want to know that you have set up the version identifiers wrong. Otherwise you'll have to compile to know about it, I think that letting the IDE signal it as an error in the context of your project is quicker.
May 20, 2008
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> An example where static assert is used is, for example, at the top of a module to signal that the module is not available if some condition is not met:
> 
> ---
> module foo;
> 
> version(Tango) {
> } else {
>   static assert("Sorry, you need to use Tango with this module");
> }
> 
> // rest of the code...
> ---
> 
> Now, imagine an IDE that wants to singal errors in that file. Obviously, if the user didn't define "Tango" as a version identifier, that static assert will be marked as an error. But it isn't really an error... The file contains no errors. The error just exists when that particular module is used with the "wrong" version.
> 
> I was thinking maybe a pragma could be added instead of a static assert:
> 
> ---
> module foo;
> 
> version(Tango) {
> } else {
>   pragma(moduleUnavailable, "Sorry, you need to use Tango");
> }
> ---
> 
> and the compiler would print "Moudle foo unavailable: Sorry, you need to use Tango". (note: the pragma name is the first one that came into my mind, please just discuss the idea :-))
> 
> An IDE could just ignore those pragmas and stop signaling errors for that module.
> 
> I know, the possibility of some feature being introduced in the language just because of an IDE need must be zero, I just wanted to know what you think about this. Maybe the intention is also clearer (again, it's not an error, the module is unavailable).

I don't see how this is better than a static assert. An error condition has been reached, so why not mark it as such. Something which specified exactly what was needed to get it to compile would be better, i.e.

pragma(requireVersion, Tango);

The IDE could then have a quick fix like "add Tango to active version identifiers"
May 20, 2008
Ok, Tango is a bad example. I have other examples:

1. If you are developing Tango, you have the tango.stdc.posix.phtread module. Now, if neither the "linux" nor the "darwing" versions are defined, you'll get errors, because you can find declarations such as:

int pthread_attr_destroy(pthread_attr_t*);

which will give an error because pthread_attr_t is only defined if "linux" or "darwing" are defined. Now, that's not a fair error. The module can't be used without any of those versions. Is that really an error? Is there something wrong that must be fixed? No.

2. Module win32.accctrl in the bindings project. At the top of the file you can find:

static assert (_WIN32_WINNT_ONLY,
	"win32.accctrl is available only if version WindowsNTonly, WindowsXP, "
	"Windows2003 or WindowsVista is set");

Now, the project as a whole may be used with other versions that those in the static assert. In fact, there may exists other modules that, to be used, must have defined other versions. So either way you'll get an error. But, again, it's not really an error. It's just pointing out that the module won't work if some condition is not met, not that some assertion in the module's logic failed.
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home