Re: Annotation of functions

[bauss via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 13:39:17 UTC, bauss wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 12:55:31 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 12:45:25 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:

string creater() pure {
        return "void func() {}";
}

mixin(creator());

That is why. There are plenty of functions, classes and structs that simply won't exist in the form of syntax until you execute CTFE.

I think I'd fire anyone that wrote functions in that way ;-)

Why would you fire someone for writing idiomatic D?

It was kind of a bad example given, but there are legitimate reasons to generate functions like that.

Ex.

mixin template Property(T, string name)
{
    mixin("private T _" ~ name ~ ";");

    @property
    {
        mixin("T " ~ name ~ "() { return _" ~ name ~ "; }");

mixin("void " ~ name ~ "(T newValue) { _" ~ name ~ " = newValue; }");

    }
}

mixin template ReadProperty(T, string name)
{
    mixin("private T _" ~ name ~ ";");

    @property
    {
        mixin("T " ~ name ~ "() { return _" ~ name ~ "; }");
    }
}

mixin template WriteProperty(T, string name)
{
    mixin("private T _" ~ name ~ ";");

    @property
    {

mixin("void " ~ name ~ "(T newValue) { _" ~ name ~ " = newValue; }");

    }
}

I should probably have put an example usage to show how it's used:

class Foo
{
    mixin Property!(int, "bar");

    mixin Property!(string, "baz");
}

void main()
{
    auto foo = new Foo;
    foo.bar = 100;
    foo.baz = "Hello";

    import std.stdio;

    writeln(foo.bar);
    writeln(foo.baz);
}