One of us is crazy: Me or {function here}.stringof

[Don]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
>> "Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message
>> news:hdj3dk$1r5k$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> AKA ".stringof strikes again", or ".attackof.stringof"...
>>>
>> Ok, *now* I see all the reports of this on bugzilla, now that I searched for
>> just "stringof" and dug through the pile of results, instead of searching
>> for both "stringof" and "function"...Real pain for metaprogramming...
> 
> At any rate I think a single stringof for a function is not sufficient.
> You might want any of:
>     foo
>     foo(int, int)
>     foo(int a, int b)
> There should probably be some __traits functions for getting these
> different things, if there aren't already.
> --bb
Funny thing --  .stringof was a direct response from Walter to my 
'meta.nameof' module.
It included  nameOf(xxx), qualifiedNameOf(xxx) and prettyNameOf(xxx), 
which were the 3 cases you listed above.