"Ary Borenszweig" <a...@esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message news:h149vq$21k...@digitalmars.com... > zsxxsz escribió: >> == Quote from Jarrett Billingsley (jarrett.billings...@gmail.com)'s >> article >>> 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 >>>> l >>> ike >>>> __FILE__ and __LINE__. __FUNCTION__ should be the base D language synt >>> ax same as >>>> __FILE__, __LINE__, in C99, they're all the compiler's things to get >>>> thes >>> e 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 >>> know, it'd be nice to actually get some results on these things once >>> in a while instead of a bunch of bullshit bikeshed discussions. >>> Sheesh. >> >> What is the main use of __FILE__, __LINE__ and __FUNCTION__? Many people >> just use >> them for logging easily, including me. In some famous server such as >> Postfix, you >> may see 'const char *myname = "xxx"; ... msg_info("%s: xxx", myname);' in >> many >> files, it's a time cost for the programmer to do so. These are base >> requirments >> for D compiler. > > I never had to use them in other languages. Why? Because debugging support > in them is excelent. So maybe enhancing debugging support for D is better > than adding a couple of keywords just to make *printf debugging* better.
Great, now try to take that language with great debugging support, and use it to do the same wonderful debugging on a *platform* that doesn't have excellent debugging support. Not everyone writes desktop apps. Besides, there's been plenty of times I've solved a problem using __blah__ and printf debugging in less time than it would have taken to fire up the debugger. And as for __FUNCTION__, that's useful for DRY.
