Re: Thoughts on Herb Sutter's Metaclasses?

2018-04-10 Thread jmh530 via Digitalmars-d

On Tuesday, 10 April 2018 at 09:32:49 UTC, Chris Katko wrote:


Wow, that thread had very little discussion, and a huge amount 
of bickering over whether someone actually understood what 
someone else might have said.


My take-away was that it can be done in D, but would be simpler 
with AST macros and Walter is against AST macros.


Re: Thoughts on Herb Sutter's Metaclasses?

2018-04-10 Thread 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d

On Tuesday, 10 April 2018 at 09:32:49 UTC, Chris Katko wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 April 2018 at 05:55:06 UTC, Joakim wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 April 2018 at 01:21:07 UTC, Chris Katko wrote:

[...]


See previous forum thread on the topic, with Walter chiming in 
a bit too:


https://forum.dlang.org/thread/kglnxqbcugerhynng...@forum.dlang.org


Wow, that thread had very little discussion, and a huge amount 
of bickering over whether someone actually understood what 
someone else might have said.


...I'm sorry?


Re: Thoughts on Herb Sutter's Metaclasses?

2018-04-10 Thread Chris Katko via Digitalmars-d

On Tuesday, 10 April 2018 at 05:55:06 UTC, Joakim wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 April 2018 at 01:21:07 UTC, Chris Katko wrote:

[...]


See previous forum thread on the topic, with Walter chiming in 
a bit too:


https://forum.dlang.org/thread/kglnxqbcugerhynng...@forum.dlang.org


Wow, that thread had very little discussion, and a huge amount of 
bickering over whether someone actually understood what someone 
else might have said.


Re: Thoughts on Herb Sutter's Metaclasses?

2018-04-10 Thread Joakim via Digitalmars-d

On Tuesday, 10 April 2018 at 01:21:07 UTC, Chris Katko wrote:
One more note: It seems like this would be heaven for trying 
out new language features without having to "manually" add them 
into the compiler first. By hijacking the syntax to AST stage, 
we can add new constructs with real-functioning code, and have 
others evaluate themselves and unit test them without having to 
"imagine" whether the code would actually work. It'd be on a 
real binary, using a real (unmodified!) compiler.


And you can also have your own "in-house" specializations. 
Which is no different than expecting people to use your API. 
Some API's have method chaining, and you use it. Some have 
pass-by-name, and you use it.


See previous forum thread on the topic, with Walter chiming in a 
bit too:


https://forum.dlang.org/thread/kglnxqbcugerhynng...@forum.dlang.org


Re: Thoughts on Herb Sutter's Metaclasses?

2018-04-09 Thread Chris Katko via Digitalmars-d
One more note: It seems like this would be heaven for trying out 
new language features without having to "manually" add them into 
the compiler first. By hijacking the syntax to AST stage, we can 
add new constructs with real-functioning code, and have others 
evaluate themselves and unit test them without having to 
"imagine" whether the code would actually work. It'd be on a real 
binary, using a real (unmodified!) compiler.


And you can also have your own "in-house" specializations. Which 
is no different than expecting people to use your API. Some API's 
have method chaining, and you use it. Some have pass-by-name, and 
you use it.