grauzone, el 19 de noviembre a las 03:47 me escribiste: > Does the current proposal make things simpler at all? All you're > doing is to enable the programmer to "fix" the clumsy semantics by > throwing lots of CTFE onto the problem. Why not generate the > operator functions with CTFE in the first place...
I was about to say that, the solution is a hack. I could understand a hack if there were no other way to do it, but you can generate the code for the opXxx using CTFE/string mixins already: we already have a hackish solution. I don't think adding a new hack would be nice (specially when it will be a big change). Maybe a not-so-hackish solution can be found when AST macros get implemented. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Borrowing money from a friend is like having sex. It just completely changes the relationship. -- George Constanza
