grauzone Wrote: > Brad Roberts wrote: > > On 1/11/2010 11:20 PM, grauzone wrote: > >> g wrote: > >>> Hi > >>> Is there a way to demangle .mangleof strings at CTFE > >>> or at least know the fully qualified name of a class or template > >>> instance. > >> If you have to use such dirty tricks, you probably should consider to > >> turn back NOW for your own good. D always lures you into doing tricky > >> template and CTFE stuff, and then you end up either in compiler bugs or > >> other dead ends. > > > > And how do bugs get fixed? Step one is finding them.. which typically > > involves > > writing code that uses the features. Secondarily, a good number of bugs > > have > > been fixed over the last couple months, so re-exploring the area might well > > bear > > good fruit. > > > > Anyway, doom and gloom pronouncements like this aren't particularly helpful. > > Some types of bugs just never seem to disappear: when one specific bug > got fixed, a regression occurs and you have a similar bug. (This > happened with forward references in the current dmd release.) > > Nothing wrong with a warning. > > > That said, demangling a symbol and using that inside compile time > > expressions > > does sound like one good definition of hell, regardless of how well it > > works. > > Exactly. The thing is just (and that I wanted to say in my previous > post): you get easily fascinated by the possibilities, but then either > the language or dmd hit an unexpected barrier and fail. Then you start > hacks by throwing heaps of CTFE and mixins on the problem, or stuff like > parsing .mangleof. I believe choosing a simpler solution instead > (although it's boring in terms of hacking) is better. > > > Later, > > Brad
well, but is there a way to get by other means the fully qualified name of a class for use to a mixin (is a project for automatic generation of lua bindings)
