On 12/31/2011 01:10 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/30/11 5:21 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 12/31/2011 12:02 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The library has a simple interface:
enum myMacro = q{... $1 $2 $(anotherMacro($1))... };
// To mixin
mixin(expand(myMacro, "argument one", "argument two"));
Andrei
I understand, but compared to how I solved the issue
1. it invents an (arguably inferior) parameter passing system, even
though there is one in the language.
2. it picks up all symbols used in $(...) from the caller's context
rather than the callee's context and there is no way to get rid of that
default, because the macro is unscoped.
Fair enough. I think your idea of defining a mini-macro-expansion system
based on CTFE and strings is genius. I also think at the present the
semantics are very unprincipled, and should not be popularized in any
form lest D mixins acquire reputation similar to C macros.
I think what you propose is a lot closer to C macros than what I already
use. Therefore I don't understand what qualifies its semantics as
unprincipled.
Finally, I think you have the resources to work your idea into a wonderful
system
that will be principled, practical, and extremely powerful.
Good luck!
Andrei
I'd be happy to extend the system, but currently I don't see it fall
short any of the three requirements. Can you help me out?
