On 2010-12-16 11:18, Pelle Månsson wrote:
On 12/15/2010 11:00 PM, 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 agree with this. Actually, just removing the parenthesis would be a
huge gain for me.
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.
This could work, but I don't think anyone is suggesting completely
replacing the mixin. I think @ could be a function/template thing, and
have strings in a more explicit mixin"";
Then again, inconsistency sucks.
The whole point of the idea/suggestion was to get rid of the strings.
Then if the syntax I've suggested is translated into the string mixin
syntax we have now then I would be fine with that.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
