plans for macros

[janderson]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> "janderson" wrote
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> "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).
>> For templates?  1.01 does support lazy for as function parameters but not 
>> as template parameters.
> 
> Why do you need a template?  A template seems like a step backwards in ease 
> of use.  I'd rather have just a lazy parameter where calling it is as easy 
> as:
> 
> LogIt("test");
> 
> 
>>
>>> 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
>> Templates are just as efficient as macros, particularly if u use the mixin 
>> syntax (ie force inlining of the template function itself).
> 
> mixin would probably work, but again, the syntax is not as appealing as a 
> macro:
> 
> log.formatInfo(...);
> 
> vs
> 
> mixin!(log.formatInfo, ...);
> 
> (don't know if this is right, I don't use mixins a lot)
> 
> -Steve 
> 
> 

I'm not arguing against macros BTW. I do think however that templates 
should beable to be written as simply as:

LogIt("test");

or at the very least

LogIt!("test");

-Joel