On 04/03/2011 07:57 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Michel Fortin"<michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote in message
news:ina7e9$2kdh$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 2011-04-03 12:04:42 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe<destructiona...@gmail.com>
said:
btw, it might be worth considering a change to overflow. Suppose
there was a way to get arbitrary size ints passed to a template.
Then, the library could do its own overflow checks, or not, enabling
things like bigint literals in this same fashion.
Though, I don't think it's a big benefit. It'd be really weird
to use (a new compile time only datatype?)
I've been thinking about the same thing, except instead of having a
special data type the template would simply take a string:
template binary(string digits) {
...
}
binary!1111_1111_0000_0000;
// no error, number "1111_1111_0000_0000" passed as a string to the
template.
I've always thought that we should be able to do something like this:
template foo(int val)
{
enum foo = val.meta.argString;
}
static assert(foo!(2+3) == "2+3");
That's Lisp (or Io): non-evaluated arguments (messages). Next century in
compiled languages ;-)
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
