On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 04:46:20PM +0200, bossfong via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> Am 23.07.2014 16:27, schrieb H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn:
> >
> >We could, though it's not quite the same as a native concepts
> >implementation where the compiler can check templates for code that
> >wrongly makes assumptions about the incoming type that aren't defined by
> >the concept.
> >
> >
> >T
> >
> true.
>
> Still, maybe compiler errors could be provided by a library that
> defines an "Concept(Interface)" UDA that you could use to annotate
> implementations of "Concepts"?
>
> import concepts;
>
> @Concept(InputRange)
> struct MyInputRange
> {
> // ...
> }
>
> verifyConcepts();
>
> Is it that what you mean?
>
> Just thinking things through here...
No, I'm talking about catching errors like this:
auto myRangeAlgo(R)(R range)
if (isInputRange!R)
{
...
auto r = range.save; // <--- oops
...
return Result(...);
}
unittest
{
auto testData = [1,2,3];
auto result = myRangeAlgo(testData);
// Test will pass, because arrays are also forward
// ranges, which have a .save method. So we fail to
// catch the bug in the code above.
assert(result.equal(expectedResults));
}
T
--
Bomb technician: If I'm running, try to keep up.
