mixin D code into D code

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

John Reimer wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 05:13:06 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
> 
>> Daniel919 wrote:
>>> Hi, why not use D instead of perl ?
>>> Since "sh style script syntax" is supported, I would like the following to be possible:
>>>
>>> import std.stdio, std.string, std.metastrings;
>>>
>>> void foo(A...)(A a)
>>> {
>>>     writefln(format(typeid(typeof(a[1]))) ~ " " ~ a[0] ~ " = \"" ~ a[1] ~ "\"");
>>> }
>>>
>>> void main (char[][] args)
>>> {
>>>     debug(templates)
>>>         foo("var", "whatever");
>>>
>>>     foo!("var", "whatever");
>>>     /* This will call dmd -run on this file. But instead of starting at main(),
>>>      * it starts by invoking foo() with the tuple ("var", "whatever").
>>>      * Mixed into the context will be the console output of the
>>>      * dmd -run call, in this case:
>>>      * char[8] var = "whatever";
>>>     */
>>>
>>>     writefln(var);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Wouldn't this be very neat and powerful ?
>>>
>>> Walter, about your concerns on malware autors:
>>> Of course script interpretation within the compile-process could be used for malware. But also the malware could be put into the compiled code itself and get's started if the app is run. So I think it doesn't make any difference.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Daniel
>> Also, people download and run makefiles to build their software all the 
>> time. Who knows what that makefile is doing.  There could be an rm -rf / 
>> buried in there somewhere in all that tab-sensitive gobbledy-gook.
>>
>> --bb
> 
> 
> Very good point.
> 
> Any auxillary tool in the compilation process could could do the same.  I
> have difficult recognizing the validity of Walter's concern in this context.
> 
> -JJR

I think the concern is that an awful lot of people who notice this capability will also 
/not/ notice the context|precedant.  And perhaps also a bit of good conscience... but 
that's no real obstacle in and of itself.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls