See the static_if paper here:

http://isocpp.org/forums

Under the post "constraints and static if" there is a link to a
document about
static_if

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDIyMDc3NjUwMTczOTM0Mjk3NjABMDI2MzM3MjkxNDM4NDQ5MzE4NDcBLWVsS1Y4dFhtdDhKATUBaXNvY3BwLm9yZwF2Mg

      Are they full of it? Has it caused the problems they mention
in
D?

On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 00:48:59 UTC, DypthroposTheImposter wrote:
>        See the static_if paper here:
>
> http://isocpp.org/forums
>
> Under the post "constraints and static if" there is a link to a
> document about
> static_if
>
> https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDIyMDc3NjUwMTczOTM0Mjk3NjABMDI2MzM3MjkxNDM4NDQ5MzE4NDcBLWVsS1Y4dFhtdDhKATUBaXNvY3BwLm9yZwF2Mg
>
>       Are they full of it? Has it caused the problems they mention
> in
> D?

Well, the two guys with an alternative proposal (concepts-lite) seem to hate static if (along with a third guy).

There seems to be a lot of strawman arguments in this paper.

On 3/8/2013 5:19 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 00:48:59 UTC, DypthroposTheImposter wrote:
>>       Are they full of it? Has it caused the problems they mention
>> in
>> D?
>
> Well, the two guys with an alternative proposal (concepts-lite) seem to hate
> static if (along with a third guy).
>
> There seems to be a lot of strawman arguments in this paper.

Many of the criticisms in the paper are addressed by our positive experience with static if in D.

On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 07:50:26PM -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/8/2013 5:19 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
> >On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 00:48:59 UTC, DypthroposTheImposter wrote:
> >>      Are they full of it? Has it caused the problems they mention
> >>in
> >>D?
> >
> >Well, the two guys with an alternative proposal (concepts-lite) seem
> >to hate static if (along with a third guy).
> >
> >There seems to be a lot of strawman arguments in this paper.
> 
> Many of the criticisms in the paper are addressed by our positive experience with static if in D.

I didn't read the paper, but I have to say that static if in D has been extremely, extremely useful in my code. Now that I've become acquianted with it, I can't live without it. It's pretty much a necessity when writing heavily-templated code. But given C++'s broken template design, I can see why its value may not have been appreciated by some people.

D may still have its warts, but in terms of being a "better C++", I think it has done a superb job, especially in the area of templates and compile-time mechanisms. Static if + CTFE + sane template syntax = readable template code = total win for D over C++.


T

-- 
Long, long ago, the ancient Chinese invented a device that lets them see through walls. It was called the "window".

On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 00:48:59 UTC, DypthroposTheImposter wrote:
>        See the static_if paper here:
>
> http://isocpp.org/forums
>
> Under the post "constraints and static if" there is a link to a
> document about
> static_if
>
> https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDIyMDc3NjUwMTczOTM0Mjk3NjABMDI2MzM3MjkxNDM4NDQ5MzE4NDcBLWVsS1Y4dFhtdDhKATUBaXNvY3BwLm9yZwF2Mg
>
>       Are they full of it? Has it caused the problems they mention
> in
> D?

I think most of the point made in this document are moot. Still static if in D don't define many corner cases that are implementation defined. But that don't change much unless you really go into tricky code. Most static if "just work", so this is really positive at the end !

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 01:48:55 +0100
"DypthroposTheImposter" <mcbracket@gmail.com> wrote:

>         See the static_if paper here:
> 
> http://isocpp.org/forums
> 
> Under the post "constraints and static if" there is a link to a
> document about
> static_if
> 
> https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDIyMDc3NjUwMTczOTM0Mjk3NjABMDI2MzM3MjkxNDM4NDQ5MzE4NDcBLWVsS1Y4dFhtdDhKATUBaXNvY3BwLm9yZwF2Mg
> 
>        Are they full of it? Has it caused the problems they mention
> in
> D?

Does that document exist somewhere in a the form of a real web page? Or at least *any* real document format?

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 02:08:07 -0500
Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 01:48:55 +0100
> "DypthroposTheImposter" <mcbracket@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >         See the static_if paper here:
> > 
> > http://isocpp.org/forums
> > 
> > Under the post "constraints and static if" there is a link to a
> > document about
> > static_if
> > 
> > https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDIyMDc3NjUwMTczOTM0Mjk3NjABMDI2MzM3MjkxNDM4NDQ5MzE4NDcBLWVsS1Y4dFhtdDhKATUBaXNvY3BwLm9yZwF2Mg
> > 
> >        Are they full of it? Has it caused the problems they mention
> > in
> > D?
> 
> Does that document exist somewhere in a the form of a real web page? Or at least *any* real document format?

To be clear, that's not a veiled attack on anything. I really *am* just simply asking if there's a link for that anywhere to a real file (html, pdf, text, wordperfect, gif, hell whatever.)

On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 03:50:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/8/2013 5:19 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
>> On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 00:48:59 UTC, DypthroposTheImposter wrote:
>>> Are they full of it? Has it caused the problems they mention in D?
>>
>> Well, the two guys with an alternative proposal (concepts-lite) seem to hate static if (along with a third Guy).
>>
>> There seems to be a lot of strawman arguments in this paper.
>
> Many of the criticisms in the paper are addressed by our positive experience with static if in D.

 Since C++ is so deeply etched with C's previous limitations and problems, it also got the preprocessor, which when you think about it does the same thing (until you've actually used it); Now you've got preprocessor #ifdef's mixed with compile time execution determining what should and shouldn't be compiled, it is a very messy pile of crud.

 Even IF static_if gets working and accepted in C++, it's core requirement to be 100% backwards compatible with all previous code ensures it's growth will forever be hampered.

 Maybe if they could get their template system fixed (which will never happen) then static_if would work much better.

 God I hate C++.

"Walter Bright"  wrote:

> Many of the criticisms in the paper are addressed by our positive experience with static if in D.

Sometimes I do find it confusing that { does or does not introduce a new scope in a very similar-looking contexts.

-- 
Jouko 

On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 09:12:30 UTC, Jouko Koski wrote:
> "Walter Bright"  wrote:
>
>> Many of the criticisms in the paper are addressed by our positive experience with static if in D.
>
> Sometimes I do find it confusing that { does or does not introduce a new scope in a very similar-looking contexts.

Is there more constructs than static if that doesn't create a scope?