Open source dmd on Reddit!

[dsimcha]

== Quote from grauzone (none at example.net)'s article
> 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.

????????????? String mixins are an absolute godsend.  I mean really, how much more
general a metaprogramming facility could you possibly ask for than the ability to
generate arbitrary D code at compile time?  Of course they can get ugly, so there
should be better ways to do things that are done frequently (regular templates
accomplish this), but last I checked, bit fields are not an everyday
run-of-the-mill programming type of feature.

As a more general comment, of course syntax and readability count for frequently
used features, but there's only so much pretty syntax available, and simplicity of
the core language is a virtue.  If certain things in D are going to have ugly
syntax, they may as well be niche features like bit fields.