plans for macros

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"janderson" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> I just found a very good use for macros, and I was wondering how they 
>> could be used to help in this situation.
>>
>> If I have a log object, and that log object is supposed to evaluate its 
>> arguments only if the logging level allows it, checked at runtime.
>>
>> So this is the ideal usage in the calling function:
>>
>> if(log.isEnabledAtLevel(Information))
>>   log.output(someExpensiveStringBuild());
>>
>> This is ideal because it only outputs at the appropriate level, and it 
>> only evaluates the expensive function if the log level is enabled.
>>
>> However, this is very verbose, and is prone to errors.  Many log systems 
>> use the following method:
>>
>> log.outputInformation(someExpensiveStringBuild());
>>
>> Which does the if-statement for you.  However, they warn you to write 
>> your logging code in the first form if the code to build the output is 
>> expensive to avoid building the output even when it is not output.  But D 
>> has a better way:
>>
>> class Log
>> {
>> void outputInformation(lazy string x)
>> {
>>     if(isEnabledAtLevel(Information))
>>       output(x);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Now, we can still use the second form, even when building the string is 
>> expensive.  But there are issues with this solution.  For one, lazy 
>> evaluation adds delegate functions wherever the logging is required, 
>> adding to runtime and code bloat.  Second, variadic functions would be 
>> nice for logging, especially with formatting, but the only way to do lazy 
>> variadic functions is with template tuples, so there is another lot of 
>> generated code, and is even more inefficient.
>>
>> But a macro would solve the problem quite nicely.  A macro would evaluate 
>> the if statement in the calling function, and so would prevent evaluation 
>> of the expensive string building unless necessary, AND would require no 
>> delegates to do it.
>>
>> The question I have is, when macros are implemented, can I have a 'class 
>> scoped' macro?  That is, a macro that knows what context it is supposed 
>> to be in, and is passed a 'this' pointer?  And will macros support 
>> variadic arguments?
>>
>> For example, I'd like to have a macro to output formatted log information 
>> only if the log is enabled, but I want to call it like a member function 
>> of the log.
>>
>> -Steve
>
> I'm not sure if this solves your problem.  Here's an interesting syntax I 
> discovered in 1.01 (haven't checked other versions).
>
> void LogIt(alias func)()
> {
>   if (true)
>   {
>     printf(func());
>   }
> }
>
> LogIt!( { char[] test = "test"; return test.ptr; } )();
>
> LogIt!( { return "test"; } )();  //You couldn't do this.
>
> Unfortunately I don't want to update my compiler at this time to see if 
> this would work in new versions.
>
> I also wonder if it could be simpled by wrapping it in something else -> 
> thoughts?  Its a pretty cool technique, essentially a inlined function 
> pointer.
>
> If alias could be replaced with the word lazy string and have D add the 
> extra sugar we'd be set.

Lazy evaluation is already supported, and already adds the extra sugar (not 
sure if 1.01 does though).

The problem I'm trying to solve is lazy evaluation of variadic arguments. 
And in general, lazy evaluation is not as efficient as a macro would be --  
there would be no automatic delegate generated, especially if variadic 
arguments need a delegate per argument, which would generate n delegates.

I really think macros are the best solution to this problem, but I was 
wondering how easy it would be to make macros look like member functions of 
a class, and if they will support variadic arguments.

-Steve