Jason House wrote:
Don Wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Justin Johansson, el 30 de octubre a las 08:42 me escribiste:
Actually, I think I like that better than 'traits'.
-Lars
I'm in agreement with whoever suggested 'meta' or just about anything else
except 'traits'.
'meta', whilst perhaps an overloaded keyword, is still much more user-friendly.
Whenever
I see 'traits' I get the feeling I need a Ph.D. to understand what it's about.
For some reason,
I don't know why, 'meta' has an aire of karma about it.
"compiler"? That could open the door to other types of access to compiler
internals, AST, etc.
Yup. I think the 'magic namespace' approach is a simple, clean way to
incorporate reflection. It could be like Object and TypeInfo, implicitly
available in every module and tightly coupled to the compiler, but can
be viewed by the user as if it were just a module. It'd be particularly
interesting if some of the functions _were_ actually implemented in
library code, when possible.
What about going one step further? You could require an import statement to use
traits. For example, import traits=std.traits could reproduce your earlier
suggestion, but gives added flexibility to the programmer. It also eliminates a
keyword.
It's too fundamental for that. You can't use template constraints
without it.
BTW, 'scope' is another possible magic namespace.
scope.compiles(XXX) -- true if XXX compiles in the current scope.
More generally, scope.YYY() would provide metaprogramming information
about the property YYY of the current scope.
