== Quote from Robert Fraser (fraseroftheni...@gmail.com)'s article
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> > 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.
> __FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__, etc. are more often used for *logging*
> than for debugging. Of course, ideally, the logger would be able to
> identify all this stuff on its own (i.e. from a stack trace), but in a
> compiled language this is pretty tricky (impossible on Windows without
> debug symbols).
Yes, I agree with it.
