On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 14:12:57 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 13:50:28 UTC, Inquie wrote:
I hate building code strings for string mixins as it's very
ugly and seems like a complete hack.
Me too, that's why I avoid doing it.
Check out my tips of the week here:
http://arsdnet.net/this-week-in-d/sep-20.html
and here:
http://arsdnet.net/this-week-in-d/2016-feb-21.html
for some ways I minimize them.
How bout, instead, we have a special code string similar to a
multiline string that allows us to represent valid D code. The
compiler can then verify the string after compilation to make
sure it is valid D code(since it ultimately is a compile time
constant).
Are you familiar with D's `q{ ... }` literals? They are lexed
though not parsed.
enum code1 = q{
void happyCode = "Makes me @@s@@";
};
then you'd have to do the `.replace("@@s@@", whatever)`
yourself on it though. They also do not allow unbalanced { }.
It is typed as string btw, no special type, just like if you
used regular quotes, just looks nicer at the definition.
Visual D doesn't seem to do much. Maybe it is lexed but most of
the code is a solid purple. Better than a normal string.
I was hoping to get something parsed though to find based errors
a CT in a meaningful way(line numbers, etc).
