Open source dmd on Reddit!
grauzone
none at example.net
Fri Mar 6 20:02:23 PST 2009
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> Michel Fortin escribió:
>> On 2009-03-06 14:35:59 -0500, Walter Bright
>> <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> said:
>>
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> "Can't live without bitfields! Give me bitfields and I'll lift the
>>>> Earth!"
>>>>
>>>> "Here they are, std.bitmanip. Well-defined and more portable and
>>>> flexible than C's."
>>>>
>>>> "Meh, don't like the definition syntax."
>>>
>>> Classic.
>>
>> Well, he certainly has a point. Compare this:
>>
>> mixin(bitfields!(
>> uint, "x", 2,
>> int, "y", 3,
>> uint, "z", 2,
>> bool, "flag", 1));
>>
>> With this:
>>
>> uint x : 2;
>> int y : 3;
>> uint z : 2;
>> bool flag : 1;
>>
>> The second is certainly prettier and more readable.
>>
>> Does it matter much? Not to me; I rarely use bit fields. If I were
>> using them a lot, perhaps I'd be more concerned.
>>
>> While I don't care very much about bitfields, that "mixin(tmpl!(...))"
>> syntax is awful. "mixin tmpl!(...)" is better, but has too many
>> limitations, and it isn't always clear for the user which one should
>> be used. Couldn't D2 get a better syntax for mixins?
>
> Well, now the \ is character if free:
>
> \bitfields(
> unit, "x", 2,
> int, "y", 3,
> uint, "z", 2,
> bool, "flag", 1,
> );
>
> But I think it looks ugly: the \ is "lambda" in some languages and this
> also reminds me of LaTeX... :-P
String mixins are awful in the first place. The only thing that could
save this kind of thing are AST macros.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce
mailing list