On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 08:23:57 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
Long story short, you are basically asking for macro. If we
allowed this, than anything could actually be code injection,
and
mean anything.
No, only mixin statements and @mixin functions. And a regular
function
calling a @mixin function would still be regular, eg not able
to access
symbols in enclosing scope by name.
But that sill implies knowing exactly *what* is called, eg
knowing the documentation of everything that is used, as opposed
to just knowing "that *looks* like a function call that *does*
something or other", but not worrying about it more than that.
Allowing implicit mixin adds an entire extra level of
"dereference" when reading wode.
If for some reason we can't have @mixin special property, can
we at least
have UFCS for mixin, so that we could write:
"variables: x1=$x1, x2=$x2, sum=$(x1+x2)".embed.mixin
I'm not sure this us very interesting (why not though), since
nothing would ever come after the mixin.
What do you mean by "nothing would ever come after the mixin" ?
You can have: some_string.embed.mixin.writeln;
Hadn't thought of that.
