Grrr.. can you guys stop replying all?  My mailer keeps trying to send to individuals instead of the list, and I have to keep remembering to fix it.

-Steve



----- Forwarded Message -----
> From:Steve Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com>
> To:Robert Jacques <sandford at jhu.edu>
> Cc:
> Sent:Friday, February 11, 2011 4:18 PM
> Subject:Re: [phobos] Split std.datetime in two?
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > From:Robert Jacques <sandford at jhu.edu>
> > 
> > On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:20:09 -0500, Steve Schveighoffer
> > > 
> > > foreach(x; someLongArray)
> > >   assert(foo(x) > 5);
> > > 
> > > which x caused the problem?  all I get is the line number for the
> assert.
> > 
> > *sigh*
> > 
> > foreach(x; someLongArray)
> >    assert(foo(x) > 5, text(x) );
> > 
> > Problem solved. Personally, I don't usually add the extra clause to
> assert
> > during initial coding; only when they fail do I add something like text("\nx:\t",x,"\nfoo:\t",foo(x)); or whatever. (Though enforces are a different story)
> 
> It would be nice if this happened automatically, I think this is what is planned.
> 
> But yes, it could be done this way.  I still don't feel that this is far superior to an unrolled list of tests.  It's not obvious what is happening without either running it or working through the context.
> 
> Something like this is acceptable, but also unrolled loops are acceptable to me (and actually preferred).
> 
> -Steve