"grauzone" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> BCS wrote: >>> Hello Andrei, >>> >>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote: >>>> >>>>> Stdout.formatln("{}", __FUNCTION__); >>>> >>>> I think instead of __FUNCTION__ we'll define a much more comprehensive >>>> static reflection facility. >>>> >>> >>> for the above case I think __FUNCTION__ is as good as it will get. >>> Define it as a human readable identifier rather than reflection. >>> >>> >> >> You will have it as a human readable identifier too. The problem with >> __FUNCTION__, __CLASS__ etc. is that the list of ad-hoc names (what >> happened to __STRUCT__, __MODULE__ et al?) can go forever. > > For classes and structs, this is already possible: typeof(this).stringof > > Now we only need a way to get some kind of compile time object for > functions and modules (like the type for classes/structs). Then you simply > can use .stringof on them. >
*smacks self in forehead*, You know, I've even used that in my own code already, and still didn't think of it when I made that post.
