On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 06:18:22PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 12/16/2015 04:09 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >Also, the lack of flexibility in number of macro arguments means you > >end up with LINK, LINK2, LINK3, etc., with no obvious indication what > >the difference is and where you should use which macro. > > (Well the obvious indication is the number innit :o).)
But does the number mean the number of arguments, or the number of arguments past the mandatory arguments, or an incremental poor man's macro version number, or ...? I think some agreed-on common naming conventions for ddoc macros (perhaps just restricted to dlang.org / phobos / etc.) would go a long way in alleviating this issue. Right now it's just a random grab-bag where it's every man for himself and anything goes. > A _simple_ way to handle arity might be worth adding to ddoc. Any > ideas? [...] Allow overloading by number of arguments, maybe? (This sounds suspiciously like a slippery slope, though...) Or allow argument list slicing, D-style? Not sure if this would solve all the necessary cases. T -- Answer: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. / Question: Why is top posting bad?