Hello!
​
Since my last update I created 2 pull requests for new visitors:

• auto_func
• backwards_range

And did some refactoring for static_if_else

Also created these pull requests in dmd adding isStaticIfCondtion method, and fixing
a minor bug in TemplateDeclaration constructor in ASTBase

• isStaticIfCondition
• template_constructor

I also encountered some difficulties for 2 particular checks:

1. I think I already mentioned this a while back but still I didn't manage to get it straight so I am mentioning this again. This is a visitor that checks if a variable name shadow another variable from an outer scope. The problems come from static if and version conditions, as these do not introduce a new scope, and for me at least it is not yet 100% clear how to treat them, as things get really complicated when we have many static if mixed with version. Here is an example of "troublesome" code for this check:

void f()
{
    version (Windows)
        int a;

    static if (true)
        version (POSIX)
            int a;
        else
            int b;
}

My implementation would wrongly issue a warning in this scenario. If anyone would have any suggestions on how to go about this it would be awesome.
This is the pr where I tried a few different implementations for that. Feel free to leave a comment :)

2. Second issue I ran into would be regarding @property functions with no arguments that should be marked const. In order not to extend this post even more please check this out for more explanations regarding why that check could be problematic.

Thank you!

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 17:31:46 UTC, Lucian Danescu wrote:

void f()
{
    version (Windows)
        int a;

    static if (true)
        version (POSIX)
            int a;
        else
            int b;
}

The dparse-based implementation assumes that the version condition are awlays true and in consequence it ignores everything that's declared in the "else" blocks. You must have missed something in the DMDFE version of the AST but to be fair at first glance your translation looks faithful.

But in any case the way it works now is not correct either so I'd advice to skip entirely static conditions and versions. It will be possible to handle these two cases the day the semantics will be run.

On Wednesday, 14 December 2022 at 15:43:53 UTC, user1234 wrote:

void f()
{
    version (Windows)
        int a;

    static if (true)
        version (POSIX)
            int a;
        else
            int b;
}

About the second problematic check I think that @property checks can be disabled for now (as you wanted to do) as this attribute is considered by users as almost useless.

In both cases the idea is to move forward, just keep track of the problems using issues or code comments.