"Rainer Deyke" <rain...@eldwood.com> wrote in message news:i1gs16$1oj...@digitalmars.com... > On 7/12/2010 19:41, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> I already agreed to that part ("For writing, yes..."). But there are >> other >> uses that *do* parse, and others that do both. The point is NOT that >> string >> mixins are *always* unsatisfactory as a replacement for AST macros. The >> point is that *there are perfectly legitimate use-cases* where string >> mixins >> are unsatisfactory as a replacement for AST macros. I think you've >> already >> agreed to this in other posts. > > The great strength of string mixins is that you can use them to add the > AST macros to D. The great weakness of string mixins is that doing so > requires a full (and extendable) CTFE D parser, and that no such parser > is provided by Phobos. >
Seems to me that would lead to unnecessary decreases in compilation performance. Such as superfluous re-parsing. And depending how exactly DMD does CTFE, a CTFE D parser could be slower than just simply having DMD do the parsing directly.