• Steve Teale <steve.teale britseyeview.com> Jun 19 2009

Steve Teale <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:

grauzone Wrote:

 Robert Fraser wrote:
 Yeah, that one is a bit tricky, and what makes it worse is that it seems 
 officially sanctioned by Walter/Andrei as the "right way" to check if a 
 type supports some operations. Basically, if you have:


 Oh, finally someone who shares my concerns! I fear the alternatives 
 would require to much thought and implementation/testing work, so that 
 our gurus prefer the current approach, despite that the semantic of the 
 code depends on silent compilation failures. (Just like SFINAE, maybe 
 even worse.)
 
 is(typeof({     }()));
 
 this means "if I made a function containing    , would that function 
 compile?". It's a hack which stems from the way the is expression works.


 Your example doesn't compile right now. But if you use a string mixin, 
 the code doesn't even have to be syntactically/lexically valid:
 
 is(typeof({ mixin("   "); }))
 


Kind of like the oomigooli bird. Flies round in ever decreasing circles and
eventually disappears up its own arsehole.