Compile Time Scope Object?

[Davidl]

and the idea is used to replace the __LINE__ __FUNCTION__
i think scope.line would be much nicer than __LINE__
and I don't see any good to bring a language with those
tokens. I'm quite sure they are just designed without
consideration of possible compile time object solution

> Consider the following coding style
>
> class AveryveryLongClassName
> {
>
>     void BuggyFunc()
>     {
>        debug writefln(`AveryveryLongClassName.BuggyFunc`);  // please  
> note this is trouble some
>     }
> }
>
> and consider the following forward reference of labels
> void func()
> {
> 	asm
> 	{
> 		mov EAX, label1;		//currently it's impossible like for some hot patch
> 	}
>    label1:
>
> }
>
>
> what i think is bringing a new Compile Time Object for each scope
> the scope compiletime object should give users the following :
>
> scope
> {
>     char[] name;	//name for the scope, like in the previous mentioned  
> BuggyFunc，it would be somemodule.AveryveryLongClassName.BuggyFunc
>     void* Labels(arg)  //? perhaps it looks like AST macro for its  
> argument
>     			// coz i want to feed scope.Labels(label1)
> 			// maybe it's foreachable ?
>     scope parent;    // give the parent scope ocmpile time structure
>     scope[] child;   // give the child scopes
>     void delegate() exit;
> 			// with this we can do the scope(exit) in a cleaner way
> 			// scope.exit = {writefln("asdkfj");}
> 			// perhaps scope.exit should only work with ~= operator
> 			// then scope.exit ~= {writefln("asdkf"); would append to scope.exit  
> list }
>     void delegate() failure;
>     void delegate() success;
>     int BeginLine,EndLine; 	// maybe provide the line numbers for the  
> current scope?
> }
>
> I think the way of scope.exit ~= {writefln("adsfj");} is better than  
> scope(exit) and more D like
>
> and scope.name would be useful for log