On 1/16/12 1:32 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/16/2012 8:38 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Either approach should work perfectly fine; it "cheats in style" by
using an
existing language construct that exactly matches the special-cased
capability.
The current approach cheats badly - it messes with the language's
fabric by
defining a construct that's not a function but looks like one.
You're right, it is cheating.
I'd be in your debt if you could at least do the right thing when
defining new
intrinsics.
We can talk about that some more. At some point, there's going to have
to be some compiler magic going on.
OK. The overarching point is that the magic should be virtually
indistinguishable from using the regular constructs. It's an
optimization, and just like with any other optimization, you don't
expect it to change the meaning of a construct.
Andrei
