> What I meant to say was more along the lines of "if this could be done as a
   > macro, does it need to be a pragma, or could it be part of a standard macro
   > package?"
   > 
   > And, secondly, "if this *is* part of a standard macro package, wouldn't it
   > be cool to let it shove arbitrary code around rather than just doing
   > invocant access syntax?"

Sure. *If* the hypothetical macro package comes to be, this and many other
proposals could be subsumed by it. But that's a mighty big "if" :-)

Damian

Reply via email to