Slightly OT: I've noticed you're often missing the word "know" in your posts (e.g. "I don't what", that should be "I don't know what"). Is something filtering your posts? :)
And yeah, I've noticed your other thread with the argument names. With a little bit of regex I could easily extract the variable names. I think this template could be useful in cases when you just want to try out a function which happens to writes some state in the parameters that are passed to it (out/ref params), without having to inspect the function signature and declare the proper variable types. Unfortunately there's no way to pass auto variables as parameters, but that's more of a Python territory, I guess. On the other hand, the template introduces new identifiers silently into the calling site (you can't see it in the code), so it's not all that practical I guess, not to mention a little dangerous. :p On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Philippe Sigaud <philippe.sig...@gmail.com>wrote: > Andrej: > > > >> >> It was just an exercise for fun but it's cool that things like this are >> possible in D. It would be nice if I could get the actual names of the >> parameters the function takes + the clear name of the function itself, that >> way I'd actually get back variables "ftc, fta, ftm" back) > > > There, found it again, while answering another thread: > > int foo(int i, double d) { return 0;} > > writeln(typeof(&foo).stringof); // "int function(int i, double d)" <-- Look > Ma, arguments names! > > But it's a quirk of .stringof, I'm not sure it's a good idea to rely on it > too much. > from there, using compile-time search in a string, you can extract the > arguments (those are between ( and ) ) > -> "int i, double d" > and from there, extracting i and d. > > I don't what will happen for overloaded functions, methods names, > constructors, ... > > > Philippe > >