On 2010-12-15 23:00, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Jonathan M Davis"<jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1035.1292441722.21107.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:27:47 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
That was my idea as well, that
@get_set("int", "bar");
could be translated into
mixin(get_set("int", "bar")); just like
just like scope statements are translated into try/catch/finally.
Honestly, I don't see much gain in using @ rather than mixin(). It's a
little
less typing, but that's it.
It does seem like a small difference, just replacing "mixin" with "@" and
removing one layer of parens. But I think that extra layer of parens, minor
as it seems, makes a big difference in the readability (and "typeability")
of mixin invocations. Those extra parens do get to be a real bother, major
visual noise at least to my eyes.
^^ I completely agree.
And it precludes stuff like mixin("lhs " ~ op ~ "
rhs") like happens all the time in overloaded operator functions.
I don't see why these shouldn't work:
@"int foo;";
return @("lhs " ~ op ~ " rhs");
At least with just the "@" part of the proposal. Maybe the delegate thing
might make it tricker, I dunno.
My idea was actually to get rid of the strings where the code to be
mixed in is defined and to have a better syntax where it's used.
The delegates are just a way of passing a block of code around. If you
just use it in place then maybe one could do like this:
@(int foo;);
return @(lhs@(op)rhs);
--
/Jacob Carlborg
