george.burgess.iv added a comment. Glad you like it!
> The second thing that would be amazing if this attribute was late parsed so > it the ability to reference this when applied to member functions That seems like a good idea; I'll look into what that would take. (In the meantime, reviews would be appreciated. :) ) > If the condition could be evaluated as-if it were part of the function body > (during constexpr evaluation) that would be incredibly powerful. Especially > within the STL where everything is constexpr. Honestly, if we could take this attribute and turn it into a full-fledged precondition attribute (that optionally acts as if it's a part of the function, optionally emits dynamic checks, ...), I'd be thrilled. If the community thinks that'd be a good idea, I'm happy to poke at it + incrementally build off of this in order to make that*. That said, I think all of that is going to require a fair bit more code and design thought to get right, and `diagnose_if` is useful enough as-is to stand on its own IMO. IOW, we need to start somewhere, and this is a minimial-ish feature set that I think would be useful. ∗ - We can do this in a non-breaking way by either introducing an independent `precondition` attribute that heavily piggybacks off of `diagnose_if`, or we can add diagnostic modes + flags to `diagnose_if` (e.g. can have `warning`, `error`, `static-precondition`, `dynamic-precondition`, ...). https://reviews.llvm.org/D27424 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
