On Wednesday, 15 April 2020 at 08:00:12 UTC, bogdan wrote:
I use a similar approach in openmethods. With the added twist
that I need to re-create functions from existing functions, with
some modifications (e.g. change the parameter types, add a
parameter), while preserving function and parameter attributes.
That inevitably leads to constructing mixin code (which I call
"mixtures"), and it has to work across module boundaries (i.e.
use `ReturnType!F` in the mixture, not the stringified type).
See here:
https://github.com/jll63/openmethods.d/blob/master/source/openmethods.d#L503,
here:
https://github.com/jll63/openmethods.d/blob/master/source/openmethods.d#L568
and here:
https://github.com/jll63/openmethods.d/blob/master/source/bolts/reflection/metafunction.d
I did not shy away from using templates and indeed there is a
significant increase in compilation time. On the other hand, the
code is much cleaner than a previous iteration that created the
mixtures directly.
If these techniques get traction, it will incite compiler
developers to improve template instantiation, hopefully.
I wonder if templates are lazily expanded. I haven't looked at
the compiler's code, my guess is: maybe not.
