Mafi: > I see the need for ctputs-like construct but I don't like the name. What > about simply making puts magically ctfe-able. The runtime behavior is > clearly defined and the compiler has to to simply catch calls to the > real puts when ctfe-ing and replace it with it's implemantation. > What do you, bearophile and others, think?
If that can be done, then I am OK with that too. Bye, bearophile
