On 03/25/2010 01:33 PM, bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
I encourage you to code that up and see how it swims.<
The idea of using that syntax gives me nausea, I can't use that even
if I implement that myself.
I believe you're exaggerating.
We need to stop inventing syntax for any single thing that seems
useful, and start eating our dogfood. If our mechanism for code
generation is not good enough, we should improve it, not generate
by hand ever new constructs.<
In C# there are ways to define your own properties, so you can
possibly use C# to define something like that @fields.
Could you please paste C# code doing that here? Then we have a good
baseline to compare the D implementation with.
This is an
example of a general tool that can be used to meta-program, keeping
the C# compiler unchanged (I am not proposing to add this to D2, but
user-defined attributes can be OK in D3. They can be a partial
alternative to macros too).
Why and how do you believe that whatever mechanism we come up with
(possibly following a proposal authored by you) will be a net
improvement over mixins?
and if it is problematic then probably we need to adjust template
syntax.<
What kind of changes are you thinking of?
Whatever doesn't give you nausea.
Regarding octals (and multi-precision integer literals, and unit
system suffixes), it seems C++0x has user-defined literals :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C++0x#User-defined_literals (I am not
asking to solve the D octal problem with them.)
auto someVariable = "1234"_Octal;
Doesn't look like a day and night to me compared to
auto someVariable = octal!"1234";
Are you sure you are saying what you mean to say?
Andrei
