On 26/04/2012 22:52, bearophile wrote:
<snip>
> For uncommon situations like isInputRange a specific annotation
> solves the problem cleanly.

As does the compiler swallowing warnings in the content of an IsExpression as I already suggested.

<snip>
> How many C/C++ programmers do you know that use lints?  I think not
> enough.  The Microsoft C++ compiler and Clang are adding more and
> more compile-time tests, replacing lints, this a trend D designers
> can't ignore.  So saying "leave it to lints" it's almost like
> saying "ignore the problem".

I agree.
http://dlang.org/overview.html
under "Who D is for": "Programmers who routinely use lint or similar code analysis tools to eliminate bugs before the code is even compiled."

My impression from this has been that D aims to eliminate (or at least minimise) the need to use lint-type tools, by making the code smells lint is made to catch illegal code and therefore caught by the compiler.

Stewart.

On Thursday, April 26, 2012 23:52:48 bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
> > I don't even know the last time that I saw an unused
> > variable left in code (except for on purpose in something like
> > isInputRange).
> 
> So if the compiler warns you of unused variables, this will not cause your code almost no warnings. No troubles for you. For uncommon situations like isInputRange a specific annotation solves the problem cleanly.

And I'd argue that we might as well save ourselves the trouble of having to deal with yet _another_ special annotation just so that we can have warnings about something which is generally a non-issue.

- Jonathan M Davis