Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:17:59 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley
<jarrett.billings...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's also insanely kludgy and ugly. Bleh.
Ugly, yes. Kludgy, I don't think so. It's only a syntax issue. The basic
concept of passing meta-code to the compiler in the form of raw text is
simple:
mixin() if you want to insert something into the parse step.
is(typeof()) if you want to catch it again after the syntax pass.
stringof if you want to catch it again after the semantic pass.
And that's all. The syntax is ugly, but the semantics are beautifully
elegant.
It'd be nice if they actually worked. is(typeof()) fails for *any*
error, and it eats those errors too, so if your code fails to compile
for some reason other than the one you're testing for, welp, good luck
figuring that out. And don't even get me started on .stringof.
Also, see my post on the "get template and its instantiation
parameters" thread for my detailed opinion on them.
By contrast, something like Nemerle macros are a kludge. The idea of
providing a 'hook' into the compiler is a horrible hack. It exposes all
kinds of compiler internals. Yes, it has nicer syntax.
I.. don't even know how to begin to respond to that.
Have you read the Nemerle extended macro tutorial? The compiler's
internal structures are completely exposed. That's a hack.
