On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 10:38:57 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Jacob Carlborg:
I remember someone someone modified DMD and added a .codeof
property or similar. It was fairly easy.
If there are enough use cases for it, then perhaps it's worth
putting both the enhancement request for .codeof
Oh, hey! I remember participating in writing some of that :)
Only Involved? You've written it. I've added only a few things. :)
On 2013-06-28 14:46, John Colvin wrote:
Is there any way of getting the body of a function as a string?
(Obviously only when the source code is available to the compiler)
I remember someone someone modified DMD and added a .codeof property or
similar. It was fairly easy.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Jacob Carlborg:
I remember someone someone modified DMD and added a .codeof
property or similar. It was fairly easy.
If there are enough use cases for it, then perhaps it's worth
putting both the enhancement request for .codeof and its
relative patch in Bugzilla.
Bye,
bearophile
Is there any way of getting the body of a function as a string?
(Obviously only when the source code is available to the compiler)
John Colvin:
Is there any way of getting the body of a function as a string?
(Obviously only when the source code is available to the
compiler)
I think that currently there isn't a simple way to do it. What is
your use case?
Bye,
bearophile
On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 13:18:39 UTC, bearophile wrote:
John Colvin:
Is there any way of getting the body of a function as a
string? (Obviously only when the source code is available to
the compiler)
I think that currently there isn't a simple way to do it. What
is your use case?
Bye,
And why don't you call the function from your clone function?
Maybe this could help you: http://dpaste.1azy.net/fork/597affd2
I used it to generate my own rvalue functions because of the lack
of rvalue references.
On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 13:55:54 UTC, Namespace wrote:
And why don't you call the function from your clone function?
Because the body of the new function needs to see the parameters
as known at compile-time.
Maybe this could help you: http://dpaste.1azy.net/fork/597affd2
I used it to
John Colvin:
Because the body of the new function needs to see the
parameters as known at compile-time.
I think to curry a function all you need to know is its
signature. And in std.traits probably there is all the
functionality to see all kinds of function arguments, their
names, tags,
On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 20:50:55 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 13:55:54 UTC, Namespace wrote:
And why don't you call the function from your clone function?
Because the body of the new function needs to see the
parameters as known at compile-time.
Maybe this could
11 matches
Mail list logo