[tnh]

> Surrounding expressions that consume that type will see the error type and suppress any other type errors they might otherwise produce.

We added a slightly-cursed version of this to clang. The goal was: include more broken code in the AST instead of dropping it on the floor, without adding noisy error cascades.

The problem is, adding a special case to all "surrounding expressions that consume that type" is literally thousands of places. It's often unclear exactly what to do, because "consume" means so many things in C++ (think overload resolution and argument-dependent lookup) and because certain type errors are used in metaprogramming (thanks, SFINAE). So this would cost a lot of complexity, and it's too late to redesign clang around it.

But C++ already has a mechanism to suppress typechecking! Inside a template, most analysis of code that depends on a template parameter is deferred until instantiation. The implementation of this is hugely complicated and expensive to maintain, but that cost is sunk. So we piggy-backed on this mechanism: clang's error type is `<dependent type>`. The type of this expression depends on how the programmer fixes their error :-)

And that's the story of how C gained dependent types (https://godbolt.org/z/szGdeGhrr), because why should C++ have all the fun?

(This leaves out a bunch of nuance, of course the truth is always more complicated)

[WalterBright]

In D, all semantic analysis of a template waits until instantiation time. This is because D is designed so that the syntax parsing does not need a symbol table.

In C++, I solved this problem by simply matching { } in the template body, and accumulating a list of tokens within the { }. Then, when instantiated, the template parameter values were known, and the template syntax could then be semantically analyzed. It was simple and effective.

But I was informed that C++ required the syntax parsing and semantics for non-dependent types without instantiation. I asked why, and the answer was "to check for errors without needing to instantiate it." I responded with "of what use is checking it if it is never used or tested?" And that was the end of that.

> The implementation of this is hugely complicated and expensive to maintain

I quietly revolted and refused to implement that disaster. AFAIK there was never a problem with deferring parsing/semantic until instantiation.

[Matheus28]

Isn't that what msvc does? I remember it's a little weird about when it actually checks for errors in templated code

[tnh]

Yes (at least approximately, I'm fuzzy on the details).

These days it supports both. (IIRC the default is legacy/nonstandard, you select the standard behavior with /fpermission-, and VS adds /fpermission- to newly generated projects)

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/two-phase-name-lookup...

[WalterBright]

I have no idea what msvc does with this.

[tnh]

Yeah, that trade-off makes a lot of sense. It's the logical conclusion of the "templates are textual" model. But C++ loves to have its cake and eat it regardless of the complexity, so it's non-conforming.

(I expect it's possible to construct cases where this difference is observable)

I think checking templates in isolation has value. We use statically typed languages in part to make more error classes locally-verifiable. But bolting that into a mostly-textual system is a mess.

(Checking templates in isolation is particularly valuable in IDEs, which tend to share logic with compiler frontends. IDEs only need that much power to do a passable job because the language is so complex, so I don't know which way this argument points)

[munificent]

I love/hate/but-really-love/but-totally-hate this.