On Monday, 18 November 2013 at 09:25:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/17/2013 9:10 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 18 November 2013 at 05:05:02 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/17/2013 7:14 PM, deadalnix wrote:
As I understand it, Timon choosed that syntax simply to
demonstrate the
limitation of your proposal using a similar syntax. Not to
propose a syntax.
Ok, then I'm not seeing what AST macros do that lazy
parameters / template
overloading / mixin templates do not?
2 things. First, they can act on statement or declaration.
Simply not with the
proposed syntax.
If they can insert a statement or a declaration uplevel, then
they are doing what I suggested with the return statement.
Second they can reflect what is passed as argument and act
accordingly, when the lazy expression solution cannot.
Expression templates can.
*Expression* templates.
