Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> ...
>
> But yea, that's is still a good point. Although I think it might be better
> considered part of the more general problem of passing code literals (even
> though it's as delegates in one case and as strings in the other). For
> instance, even without any mixins involved, we still have this kind of mess:
>
> void repeat(int num,
> IForgetTheSyntaxOffhandButLetsJustSayADgThatTakesVoidAndReturnsVoid dg)
> {
> for(int i; 0..num)
> dg();
> }
>
> // Eeew:
> repeat(3,
> {
> // Stuff here
> });
>
>
Yep. My thoughts exactly.
