On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 08:01:19 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 6 April 2015 at 18:17:31 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On the other hand, many features in the language could be
implementation as macro in object.d, reducing language
complexity.
Mixin has some severe limitation when you want to pass symbols
that are not accessible down the road (the type mechanism in
SDC is a very good example of how absurdly complex things can
get just because you need to make some symbols accessible down
the road).
I'm not eager to see them in, as I'd favor finishing what is
already started.
Over time, while researching how macro approach feels like in
other languages, I have become more sceptical of providing it
as a generally available feature. But it could be interesting
to allow them only in std / core package to be able to move
more language implementation into library.
My opinion is that it should be addressed as a culture problem
and not trying to limit the language. If a macro-system could be
added it shouldn't be limited to just phobos code. Instead the
community should look down upon over usage of the feature in
non-library code.
