Mixin versus c++ preprocessor?

[Bill Baxter]

Tim Burrell wrote:
> Tom S wrote:

> But, its original intent was sound, and I think it could be possible to 
> include a preprocessing step that doesn't allow for easy obfuscation of 
> code, or crazy code block bugs (anyone remember the while(0) hack?).  I 
> don't think it would be a sin at all to include a safe and modified 
> subset of a C style preprocessor to D.  Although I realize that's never 
> going to happen, so it's probably pointless to bother thinking about :).

That's pretty much exactly the idea behind AST macros.

> Either way, as bearophile suggested, I think the AST macros should do 
> the trick (I wasn't ware of them when I made my initial reply), so no 
> worries.

Yep.

--bb