On 10/30/2012 01:43 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 00:29:22 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:17 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, October 29, 2012 23:38:34 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 10/29/2012 12:03 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, October 29, 2012 11:42:59 Zhenya wrote:
Hi!
Tell me please,in this code first and second static if,are these
equivalent?
with arg = 1, __traits(compiles,"check(arg);") = true,
is(typeof(check(arg))) = false.
In principle, is(typeof(code)) checks whether the code in there is
syntatically and semantically valid but does _not_ check whether the
code
actually compiles. For instance, it checks for the existence of the
symbols
that you use in it, but it doesn't check whether you can actually use
the
symbol (e.g. it's private in another module).
...
Accessing private symbols is always illegal, even within typeof
expressions.>
As I understand it, that's not supposed to be the case. is(typeof(T.init))
tests for existance not for compilability, and private symbols are fully
visible by everything that imports the module that they're in. They're
just
not accessible. I completely agree that it would be better for them to be
hidden as well, but it doesn't work that way right now, and no one has
been
able to convince Walter that it should.
...
That is a different issue.
But as long as private symbols are visible, they should work with
is(typeof(blah)), because it's testing for their existence, not whether they
can be used or not..
- Jonathan M Davis
wtf.
