On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:06:09 +0200, Trass3r <mrmoc...@gmx.de> wrote:
>Shouldn't __traits return Tuples instead of arrays (esp. allMembers) to
>allow sophisticated compile time reflection?
>Currently it seems impossible to do something along the lines of
>
>foreach (member; __traits (allMembers, Class))
>{
> foreach (overload; __traits (getVirtualFunctions, Class, member))
> {
> // do stuff
> }
>}
It's possible to statically unroll the foreach's with a template
generating a tuple of consequtive integers (not tested):
template Sequence(size_t count, size_t index = 0)
{
static if (index < count)
alias Tuple!(index, Sequence!(count, index + 1)) Sequence;
...
}
enum members = __traits (allMembers, Class);
foreach (i; Sequence!(members.length))
{
enum funcs = __traits (getVirtualFunctions, Class, members[i]);
foreach (j; Sequence!(funcs.length))
{
// do stuff
}
}
I'm not sure __traits should return tuples because arrays can be used
with CTFE without generating an extra symbol, meaning less code bloat.
>
>Maybe it would be possible with Tuples using template recursion.
>
>
>
>Also the following doesn't work with dmd, returns 0 for all members:
>
>Base base = new Base;
>auto members = __traits(allMembers, typeof(base));
>foreach(m; members)
> writefln(base.classinfo.getMembers(m).length);
getMembers has not been implemented, AFAIK
