kenji hara wrote: > Issue in bugzilla: > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6207 > Test implementation: > https://github.com/9rnsr/dmd/commit/52e4491cf6bf9ccf6dccc1fa60581fd6797d39b3 > > String mixin feature in D is very useful, but its syntax is bit ugly. > My proposal will make it more softly, and introduces more generative > programming. > > Any thoughts? > > Kenji
String mixins themselves are 'a little bit ugly' (but unquestionably very useful). I think the syntax should keep reflecting that. Your proposal is a try to make up for Ds lack of macros. I'd prefer macros. Also overloading the meaning of 'mixin template' seems to be questionable. As I understand it, your proposal would make code like this valid?: mixin template bar(bool b){ static if(b){ enum bar="foo(123);" }else{ int foo(int x){ return 123+x; } } } int main(){ mixin bar!(0); int x=bar!(1); assert(x == 246); } This does not seem quite right to me. Cheers, -Timon