mixin macros -- so tantalizing

[Daniel Keep]

Don Clugston wrote:
> With the q{ } token strings we can now do string mixins and get syntax
> highlighting back. It's ugly, though:
> 
> mixin(foo(q{a+b*c}));
> 
> If we just had something which behaved as
> 
> #define func(X) mixin(foo(q{X}))
> 
> for example, something like:
> 
> mixin alias foo func;
> 
> which would declare func as a 'mixin alias' of foo.
> 
> (of course, there's the 'macro' keyword as well; 'abstract' is also
> interesting).
> allowing us to write:
> 
> func(a+b*c);
> 
> which would be instantly applicable. Almost all of the ugliness would
> disappear from my BLADE code, for example.
> By contrast, I still haven't seen any use cases for the macros as
> described in the conference presentation!

I was under the impression that *sound goes batsh!t, machine crashes;
had to reboot, now where was I?* we'd be able to do this:

  macro func(e) { mixin(foo(e.stringof)); }

  func(a+b*c);

I agree that your method is cleaner, however.  That said, you could
probably write a macro that took your ctfe function and turned it into a
macro of itself (oh dear; I'm rather getting ahead of myself, it seems :P).

	-- Daniel