"Yigal Chripun" <yigal...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gv5dpn$2oe...@digitalmars.com... > > I think Nemerle provies this - the constructs in Nemerle for the Macro > system are very simple and intuitive. you only have one extra syntax > feature, the <[ ]>. think of D's CTFE only much more extended in scope - > you write a CTFE function and compile it. (that's the Nemerle Macro > equivalent) than you just call it in a different file and the compiler > will execute this function at compile time. > Nemerle does not need an interpreter for this since these functions are > compiled just like the rest of the code. Nemerle also provides compiler > APIs so these functions could work on AST to add/alter/remove types and > other constructs. >
As I recall, we got onto this subject from discussing ways to combine the power of D/C++-style templates with the cross-[assembly/object] benefits of C#-style generics. I understand what you're saying here about why nemerle's macro system is like a better form of D's CTFE. But I'm unclear on how nemerle's macro system relates to the problem of achieving the best of both worlds between D/C++-style templates and C#-style generics?