Possible, but I don't relish the thought of forever explaining to people that they need to use printf with or without the @ depending on if they want it to be fast or flexible. If you really don't care about speed, you can just do this right now:
printf(fmt::AbstractString, args...) = @eval @printf($(bytestring(fmt)), $(args...)) But actually don't do that because it's so horrifically slow and inefficient I just can't. On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Carrera <dcarr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 22 September 2015 at 20:40, Stefan Karpinski <ste...@karpinski.org> > wrote: > >> I think that before any further discussion takes place of how easy or >> hard implementing a high-performance printf is, anyone who'd like to >> comment should spend some time perusing GNU libc's vfprintf >> implementation >> <http://repo.or.cz/w/glibc.git/blob/ec999b8e5ede67f42759657beb8c5fef87c8cc63:/stdio-common/vfprintf.c>. >> This code is neither easy nor trivial – it's batsh*t crazy. >> > > That is insane... 2388 lines, half of it macros, and I have no idea how it > works. > > > >> And we want to match its performance yet be much more flexible and >> generic. The current printf implementation does just that, while being >> somewhat less insane GNU's printf code. If someone has bright ideas for how >> to *also* allow runtime format specification without sacrificing >> performance or generality, I'm all ears. >> > > > This might be a stupid question, but what's the harm in sacrificing > performance as long as we keep the current @sprintf for scenarios that call > for performance? I don't always need printf() to be fast. > > > > >> I have some thoughts, but they're just that – thoughts. One option is to >> change the design and avoid printf-style formatting altogether. But then >> I'm sure I'll never hear the end of it with people kvetching about how we >> don't have printf. >> > > Probably. Everyone is used to printf and they are comfortable with it. > > Daniel. >
