On 2015-05-27 14:17, Kagamin wrote:
Well, that's the point: the function is a normal function, only some of
its parameters require specially prepared arguments, this can't be
missed as soon as arguments are passed to the respective parameters.
I prefer to be more explicit in this case, especially since the keyword
is already available.
In that case I would prefer the "macro" keyword. It's already a
reserved, for exactly this purpose, so it will be backwards compatible.
Well, maybe, I just didn't need the keyword.
I don't need it either, it's just what I preferred.
No, passing of Context is not proposed.
The feeling I have it that it's hard to know if it's needed or not
without implementing/using the macro system.
I mean, the template instantiation syntax can inform the compiler that
the expression is evaluated at compile time with possible code
generation, so that the compiler is prepared to what macro will do. This
resembles similarity between macros and templates. If macros can use
existing syntax of a function call, I see no problem if they use another
existing syntax.
True, but how would that the syntax look like for template macro, if
possible?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
