On Monday, 3 September 2018 at 06:39:17 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
On Monday, 3 September 2018 at 04:43:30 UTC, bauss wrote:
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 20:01:08 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 19:42:20 UTC, bauss wrote:
Woud be so much more maintainable if I could have each
statement into a variable that could be maintained properly.
You could extract the body of the static foreach into a
[template] function.
I'm aware of that, but it's an unnecessary work around for
something as trivial as the alternative would have been.
You would need to mark symbols as scoped to the static foreach
body, or else as exported from a scope to an outer scope. So
it's not exactly trivial.
It's more trivial than having them in another part of the code.
I changed my implementation though to move away from static
foreach for now and just generate a huge mixin from the
definitions of the generated interface.
