grauzone Wrote: > Your example doesn't compile right now. The "@@@" was meant as an example to be replaced with any code. Yeah, you probably knew that.
> But if you use a string mixin, > the code doesn't even have to be syntactically/lexically valid: > > is(typeof({ mixin("@@@"); })) True -- both these features (string mixins and is-expressions) are rife with pitfalls. But they're both very useful features (if you get rid of string mixins, 25% of my code will stop compiling...). Silent compilation is dangerous indeed, but also very powerful. I was just suggesting we need a better syntax, but I realized we have one: __traits(compiles). Why Andrei isn't using this is the real mystery.