On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 at 19:28:03 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 09/23/2015 03:18 PM, Chad Joan wrote:

This is why I argued for alternative mixin syntax in D some ... years?
... ago.

It'd be really cool to have a writefln overload that did this:

int somevar = 42;
writefln#("This is ${somevar}");

writefln#("Plus two and you get ${somevar+1}");

Which would just be shorthand for

int somevar = 42;
mixin writefln!("This is ${somevar}");

mixin writefln!("Plus two and you get ${somevar+2}");

I feel like a bit of syntax sugar could go a long way ;)

Yea, the trouble with string mixins is that they're ugly enough people don't like to use them.

I'd argued in the past for a way to tag a CTFE-able string-returning function as being intended for mixing-in, so you could omit the "mixin(...)" part. But we only ever got it for template mixins. Allowing it for string mixins was too controversial. :(

I dunno, maybe even a string mixin sugar as simple as this would be a big help:

mixin!func(args to func here)


mixin!interp("Some string here")

But I'm guessing the ship's ling since sailed for anything like that.

What about even just removing the syntax distinction between string mixins and template mixins?

mixin "int i = 0";
mixin declareI!();

While we're at it, how about optional parens for templates as well as functions?

Reply via email to