On May 31, 11 03:56, Timon Gehr wrote:
On May 31, 11 00:59, Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
[snip]
Walter, what do you think about adding __MODULE__ to the language? It
will work similar to __FILE__ and __LINE__ but instead get replaced by
the name of the module. This would be really useful for std.log's
verbosity filtering feature.
I can send a pull request once I am familiar with dmd's code.
Thanks,
-Jose
I'd recommend making __MODULE__ return the actual module object instead
of the module name, in case anybody wants to implement it. The latter
can be easily got by __MODULE__.stringof[7..$] or parsing
std.traits.mangledName!__MODULE__ if you need the fully-qualified name,
but the reverse is not true.
Moreover, making __MODULE__ a true module object allows a global scope
be passed around implicitly, e.g. currently you need to write
int f(int x) { return x*x-2; }
void main() {
auto m = map!((y){ return f(y)+1; })([1,6,8]);
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ugly
but with __MODULE__ it is possible to reduce the syntactic noise:
auto m = map!"f(a)+1"([1,6,8]);
by declaring std.functional.unaryFun as
template unaryFun(alias f, ....., alias mod=__MODULE__) {
...
with (mod) {
mixin(f);
}
...
While this is already quite useful, stuff like this wont work:
import std.algorithm;
void main(){
int f(int x){return x*x-2;}
auto m = map!"f(a)+1"([1,6,8]);
}
What you'd actually want to pass implicitly is a local __SCOPE__, not a global
__MODULE__ scope.
Timon
__MODULE__ requires minimal change because a module symbol is
well-supported. __SCOPE__ needs much more work. As a short-term
solution, __MODULE__ is more practical to implement first than __SCOPE__.
