On 2016-01-31 13:59:06 +, Robert M. Münch said:
I like CTFE and the meta programming idea for languages like D.
However, I'm wondering why most (everyone?) is trying to do
meta-programming using the same language as the one getting compiled.
IMO the use-cases a pretty different and doing
On 2016-01-31 14:35:13 +, cym13 said:
I see things differently. First of all I don't see everyone trying
to do meta-programming with the same language. C++ for example has
a quite specific syntax between its arcane templates and the
preprocessor.
Well, ok, maybe a "using the same concepts
On Tuesday, 2 February 2016 at 08:34:38 UTC, Robert M. Münch
wrote:
On 2016-02-01 08:15:11 +, deadalnix said:
I'm not sure what is preventing you from doing that already.
There is compile time reflection (has access to some compiler
internals) and D support functional style. Unless you
On 2016-02-01 08:15:11 +, deadalnix said:
I'm not sure what is preventing you from doing that already. There is
compile time reflection (has access to some compiler internals) and D
support functional style. Unless you have some specific in mind, I
don't think there is anything we can do
On 2016-01-31 15:31:59 +, anonymous said:
You're conflating CTFE with the other meta programming tools here. CTFE
is the same language as run-time D, but it doesn't have strange
template syntax. Templates, static if, __traits, etc. have strange
syntax, but they're sort of a different
On 2016-02-02 08:39:34 +, deadalnix said:
That is definitely true that the compile time API is kind of screwy.
That's definitively not you. I think the best path forward at this
stage is to provide nice API as a library on top of it.
And if we do this, it's only a small step to add a
On Tuesday, 2 February 2016 at 08:31:07 UTC, Robert M. Münch
wrote:
No, my point is that CTFE and meta-programming seems to be much
simpler and powerful if I can use a more functional programming
approach for it. Working with powerful lists and data = code
and code = data concept would
On 02.02.2016 09:27, Robert M. Münch wrote:
==> BEGIN
[...]
enum A {afoo, bfoo, cfoo};
(Aside: In D no semicolon is needed here.)
string generateEnums(T...)(string type){
string code = "enum " ~ type ~ " {";
// this is a static foreach (compile time)
foreach(m; T){
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 13:59:06 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
I like CTFE and the meta programming idea for languages like D.
However, I'm wondering why most (everyone?) is trying to do
meta-programming using the same language as the one getting
compiled. IMO the use-cases a pretty
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 13:59:06 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
However, I'm wondering why most (everyone?) is trying to do
meta-programming using the same language as the one getting
compiled. IMO the use-cases a pretty different and doing CTFE,
code-generation etc. needs some other
On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 00:02:55 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 13:59:06 UTC, Robert M. Münch
wrote:
However, I'm wondering why most (everyone?) is trying to do
meta-programming using the same language as the one getting
compiled. IMO the use-cases a pretty
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 13:59:06 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
I like CTFE and the meta programming idea for languages like D.
However, I'm wondering why most (everyone?) is trying to do
meta-programming using the same language as the one getting
compiled. IMO the use-cases a pretty
I like CTFE and the meta programming idea for languages like D.
However, I'm wondering why most (everyone?) is trying to do
meta-programming using the same language as the one getting compiled.
IMO the use-cases a pretty different and doing CTFE, code-generation
etc. needs some other
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 13:59:06 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
I like CTFE and the meta programming idea for languages like D.
However, I'm wondering why most (everyone?) is trying to do
meta-programming using the same language as the one getting
compiled. IMO the use-cases a pretty
14 matches
Mail list logo
