I'll concede that if you know the function name at runtime, Mauro's solution may be a little cleaner, especially if it will be called a lot.
There are plenty of examples in Base of @eval being used to define functions, such as lines 11-18 here: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/861f02712eb4b41c08fed3f21c5a4206b8d669bc/base/int.jl I've copied this pattern in my own code and found it extremely convenient. I can't think of any examples of macros in Base which define functions. Cheers, Tom On Monday, 1 June 2015 02:35:28 UTC+10, Josh Langsfeld wrote: > > I don't think this is correct actually. With Julia's metaprogramming > abilities, all macros could be handled by runtime functions. > > The rule I follow is that macros should be used when some processing needs > to be done at compile time / source-processing time. Usually, that's > exactly when you want to programmatically generate code for a function. In > particular, I thought it was widely regarded that calling on 'eval' was a > sign you should consider using macros for your problem if possible. > > So I think the first reply from Mauro is the most Julian solution. Unless > there's something really weird like the function name isn't known until > runtime, in which case no macro can work. > > On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 5:48:41 AM UTC-7, Tom Lee wrote: >> >> ... >> >> Also, I should clarify that when I wrote "My understanding is that you >> should never use a macro if you can easily write an equivalent function" I >> meant you should not create a new macro to do something that can just as >> easily be done by a function - not that existing macros like @eval should >> be avoided. >> >
