On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 20:50:55 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 13:55:54 UTC, Namespace wrote:
And why don't you call the function from your clone function?
Because the body of the new function needs to see the
parameters as known at compile-time.
Maybe this could help you: http://dpaste.1azy.net/fork/597affd2
I used it to generate my own rvalue functions because of the
lack of rvalue references.
Thanks, that was helpful for a few hints, but it doesn't fix
this particular problem.
Oh, hey! I remember participating in writing some of that :)
Yeah, with traits, you can get enough info to extract all the
information you want about the function to redeclare it any way
you want.
The only thing you *can't* get is... the body!
If you have access to the source code of the function, you could
redeclare it as a token string? eg:
before:
int foo(int a)
{
return a+1;
}
after:
enum fooString =
q{
return a+1;
};
int foo(int a){mixin(fooString);}
int foo()(int a){mixin(fooString);}
Yeah... not a great solution.
--------
The only way I could see it happen would be with a compile
__trait ?
Does the compiler even have the info, or is it completely
obliterated after the lex phase?
The compiler *should* have the info, since it can pinpoint the
coordinates of compilation errors.
But I wouldn't know too much.
