On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Denis Koroskin<2kor...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:29:21 +0400, grauzone <n...@example.net> wrote: > >> Jarrett Billingsley wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 9:46 PM, zsxxsz<zhengshu...@hexun.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> It's good. But I think it should be implement by the DMD compiler, just >>>> like >>>> __FILE__ and __LINE__. __FUNCTION__ should be the base D language >>>> syntax same as >>>> __FILE__, __LINE__, in C99, they're all the compiler's things to get >>>> these and the >>>> compiler do these more easily than any library. >>>> >>> I completely agree, but Walter and Andrei's argument against it is - >>> where does it end? Do we need __PACKAGE__, __MODULE__, __TYPE__, >>> __TEMPLATE__, etc. etc. etc.? And I agree with them too - but you >> >> All we need is a __HERE__, which expands into a struct literal that >> provides module, filename, etc. fields. It even can be linked to the next >> enclosing scope to walk upwards nested functions and types. >> >> __FILE__ becomes __HERE__.filename, >> __LINE__ becomes __HERE__.line >> > > IIRC, it was previously proposed it as __SCOPE__
Oh, but I want it to be called __LOCATION__! No, __CONTEXT__! :P I really don't care WHAT it's called or what its semantics are. This is a simple problem. This should not be hard to solve. Bah.
