On 2010-12-16 23:05, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:28:03 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
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);
I would have thought that template mixins would be the thing to use when you
didn't want to deal with strings. string mixins are extremely powerful and
flexible, and I'd really hate to lose them. And IIRC, Kenji Hara was working on
a
module to really help make dealing with complicated string mixins easier and
less painful. Anything that you propose is going to have to have major benefits
over the current string mixin situation for it to stand any chance of being
accepted.
- Jonathan M Davis
Template mixins and string mixins are used for different things. There's
a lot of things that string mixins can do that template mixins can't. I
have no intention what so ever to suggest something that isn't as
powerful as string mixins, just a new syntax. If it turns out that a
having a powerful syntax without strings isn't possibles than I'll guess
we have to live with the strings.
Don't know if you read my first post put there I wrote that it wasn't a
real suggestion (at least not yet) I just wanted the community's
thoughts on the idea and see if we could turn it into something useful
that could become a real suggestion, if people where interested.
The ideas I wrote in my extended suggestion, "Taking it one step
further", I think that those can have benefits over string mixins.
Basically allowing you to pass the whole body of a class declaration to
a function, as a delegate, with a syntax looking like Java annotations.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
