grauzone Wrote:
> Your example doesn't compile right now.
The "@@@" was meant as an example to be replaced with any code. Yeah, you
probably knew that.
> But if you use a string mixin,
> the code doesn't even have to be syntactically/lexically valid:
>
> is(typeof({ mixin("@@@"); }))
True -- both these features (string mixins and is-expressions) are rife with
pitfalls. But they're both very useful features (if you get rid of string
mixins, 25% of my code will stop compiling...). Silent compilation is dangerous
indeed, but also very powerful.
I was just suggesting we need a better syntax, but I realized we have one:
__traits(compiles). Why Andrei isn't using this is the real mystery.
