Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
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 think what he wanted to say is, it was proposed before and it was...
ignored.
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.
Simple problems tend to be ignored. But because they don't go away
themselves, they pile up and keep making life harder.
