__FUNCTION__ implemented with mixins and mangles

[grauzone]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Denis Koroskin<2korden at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:29:21 +0400, grauzone <none at example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 9:46 PM, zsxxsz<zhengshuxin at hexun.com> wrote:
>>>>> It's good. But I think it should be implement by the DMD compiler, just
>>>>> like
>>>>> __FILE__  and __LINE__. __FUNCTION__ should be the base D language
>>>>> syntax same as
>>>>> __FILE__, __LINE__, in C99, they're all the compiler's things to get
>>>>> these and the
>>>>> compiler do these more easily than any library.
>>>>>
>>>>  I completely agree, but Walter and Andrei's argument against it is -
>>>> where does it end?  Do we need __PACKAGE__, __MODULE__, __TYPE__,
>>>> __TEMPLATE__, etc. etc. etc.?  And I agree with them too - but you
>>> All we need is a __HERE__, which expands into a struct literal that
>>> provides module, filename, etc. fields. It even can be linked to the next
>>> enclosing scope to walk upwards nested functions and types.
>>>
>>> __FILE__ becomes __HERE__.filename,
>>> __LINE__ becomes __HERE__.line
>>>
>> IIRC, it was previously proposed it as __SCOPE__
> 
> Oh, but I want it to be called __LOCATION__!  No, __CONTEXT__!  :P

I think what he wanted to say is, it was proposed before and it was... 
ignored.

> I really don't care WHAT it's called or what its semantics are.  This
> is a simple problem.  This should not be hard to solve.  Bah.

Simple problems tend to be ignored. But because they don't go away 
themselves, they pile up and keep making life harder.