OK - would this be a valuable tool to have around? Or does it reduce to
something simpler that I'm not aware of?
The idea of replacing the "i" in the anonymous function seems a bit
creepy..?
function _itexprs(it)
Expr(:escape, Expr(:block, eval(it)...))
end
macro itexprs(it)
_itexprs(it)
end
@eval begin
type Test0
@itexprs [symbol("a_$i") for i in 3:5]
end
end
names(Test0)
3-element Array{Symbol,1}:
:a_3
:a_4
:a_5
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Tim Holy <tim.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, that's fine. I thought you meant in combination with generating
> multiple
> types of different names.
>
> --Tim
>
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 01:57:08 PM Fil Mackay wrote:
> > I just implemented an "itexprs" and it gives:
> >
> > @eval begin
> > type Test1
> > @itexprs 3:5 i->a_i::Int
> > end
> > end
> >
> > names(Test1)
> >
> > 5-element Array{Symbol,1}:
> > :a_3
> > :a_4
> > :a_5
> >
> > Is this not useful, in that I can now pass in any iterator not just a
> 1:N..
> > doesn't the above allow you to avoid collisions?
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Tim Holy <tim.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 10, 2014 06:19:03 PM Fil Mackay wrote:
> > > > Nice one.. is there a @nexprs that can take a compile-time iterable,
> and
> > > > map function that produces a child expression for each item? Kind of
> > > > like
> > > > replacing $N with "1:5" rather than one value at a time. That's what
> I'm
> > > > really looking for.
> > >
> > > No there isn't, and at the moment I don't see how it would be useful.
> In
> > > many
> > > circumstances you use a whole collection of cartesian macros together,
> and
> > > guessing how the different terms are supposed to be interleaved would
> be
> > > an
> > > exercise in mind-reading. For example, in this case, if @nexprs took a
> > > 1:5,
> > > you'd be trying to generate multiple fields named a_1 within a single
> > > type,
> > > which would obviously be an error.
> > >
> > > --Tim
>
