plans for macros
yigal100 at gmail.com
Thu May 15 22:03:29 PDT 2008
> Just a though. Couldn't templates simply be extended to handle macro
> cases so that we get supper powerful templates rather then another
> feature that works independently.
> ie I see macros working like:
> macro void MyMacro(foo)
> MyMacro(X + 5 * 10);
> Where as we could make a template do the same job,
> void MyMacro(alias foo)()
> MyMacro!(X + 5 * 10); //Compiler figures that it can drop the second ()
> because its zero params.
> Any cases that you need for a macro should be put into templates instead
> IMHO. That will give up the flexibility to combine the power of the
> template with the syntax sugar of a macro.
first, I'd also try using a mixin to solve this.
socond, I too think that having macros as an independent new feature
adds unneeded redundancy. I think that macros would provide a super set
of the abilities of templates, so I suggest, instead of you proposal of
adding macro capabilities to templates, to do the exact opposite.
i.e. provide an "upgrade path" from your current template solution to
the more general macro solution. the current syntax will still work, but
the compiler would allow the user to also treat a template as a macro.
the end result should be, that the client code could make use of the
syntax sugar of macros even if the current implementation is a template.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn