On 9 January 2012 12:01, Martin Nowak <d...@dawgfoto.de> wrote: > Am 04.01.2012, 15:33 Uhr, schrieb Vladimir Panteleev < > vladi...@thecybershadow.net>: > > On Wednesday, 4 January 2012 at 14:28:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> >>> Hmmm, I see that the other way around. D CTFE-generated macros are much >>> easier to debug because you can actually print the code before mixing it >>> in. If it looks like valid code... great. >>> >> >> Paging Don Clugston: would it be feasable to have the compiler remember >> the source position of every single char/string literal or >> compile-time-evaluated string expression? >> >> I'm thinking that if the compiler tracks the source of every string/char >> literal in the source code, all across to any manipulations, debugging >> CTFE-generated code would be a lot easier - the compiler would emit error >> messages pointing inside string literals, and debuggers could step inside >> code in string literals. (The one thing this doesn't allow is allowing >> debuggers to step through a DSL with no D code in it.) >> >> The naive implementation would store the position of every character, >> which would blow up the memory usage by about 13 times or so on 32-bit? >> (For every character, add a struct with 3 fields - char* filename; int >> line, column). A rope-like structure could cut down on that but possibly >> drastically complicating the implementation. >> > > Last time I generated big and complex mixin I let the compiler > output mixins to separate files. This gives you nicer debugging > and readable error lines. > https://github.com/D-**Programming-Language/dmd/pull/**426<https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/426> >
Amazing idea, this should be standard! That totally changes my feelings towards mixins :)
