On Sunday, 14 September 2014 at 01:48:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 9/13/14, 3:25 PM, Walter Bright wrote: >> On 9/13/2014 1:10 PM, eles wrote: >>> This presentation: >>> >>> https:// parasol. tamu.edu/ people/bs/ 622-GP/ C++14TAMU.pdf >>> >>> He criticizes C99 VLA (slide 24) as being "an abomination" >>> >>> But the surprise comes at the end (slide 57), where he also >>> criticizes... the >>> static if as being "a total abomination". Well, this is D, I told myself. >>> >>> Are those points valid?: >>> >>> static if is a total abomination >>> • Unstructured, can do everything (just like goto) >>> • Complicates static analysis (AST-based tools get hard to write) >>> • Blocks the path for concepts >>> • Specifies how things are done (implementation) >>> • Is three slightly different “ifs” using a common syntax >>> • Redefines the meaning of common notation (such as { ... }) >>> This presentation:He criticizes C99 VLA (slide 24) as being "an abomination"But the surprise comes at the end (slide 57), where he alsocriticizes... thestatic if as being "a total abomination". Well, this is D, I told myself.Are those points valid?:static if is a total abomination• Unstructured, can do everything (just like goto)• Complicates static analysis (AST-based tools get hard to write)• Blocks the path for concepts• Specifies how things are done (implementation)• Is three slightly different “ifs” using a common syntax• Redefines the meaning of common notation (such as { ... }) >> >> Yeah, well, we have many years of experience with "static if" and no >> apocalypse has yet happened. >> >> The proposal: >> >> http:// www.open- std.org/ jtc1/sc22/ wg21/docs/ papers/ 2012/n3329.pdf >> >> Bjarne's rebuttal: >> >> http:// www.open- std.org/ jtc1/sc22/ wg21/docs/ papers/ 2013/n3613.pdf On 9/13/2014 1:10 PM, eles wrote:Yeah, well, we have many years of experience with "static if" and noapocalypse has yet happened.The proposal:Bjarne's rebuttal: > > D offers strong evidence that static if is an enormously useful construct. I have all respect for Bjarne as language designer, researcher, and engineer, but the evidence suggest he called this wrong. He is right that static if would have derailed work on concepts, because it simply exposes them as missing the point. From that perspective N3613 is entirely politically motivated (almost all technical arguments are bogus, and the reasonable ones are exaggerated by the fallacy of vivid argument). > On 9/13/14, 3:25 PM, Walter Bright wrote:D offers strong evidence that static if is an enormously useful construct. I have all respect for Bjarne as language designer, researcher, and engineer, but the evidence suggest he called this wrong. He is right that static if would have derailed work on concepts, because it simply exposes them as missing the point. From that perspective N3613 is entirely politically motivated (almost all technical arguments are bogus, and the reasonable ones are exaggerated by the fallacy of vivid argument). http:// phdcomics.com/ comics/ archive. php?com icid=1727