New syntax for string mixins

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-12-14 21:44, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jacob Carlborg"<doob at me.com>  wrote in message
> news:ie8i8c$15f0$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> On 2010-12-14 19:13, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "Graham St Jack"<Graham.StJack at internode.on.net>   wrote in message
>>> news:ie76ig$b2v$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>>
>>>> What you are suggesting here seems to be a way to dramatically reduce
>>>> the
>>>> complexity of code that generates source-code and mixes it in. I think
>>>> something like that is needed before this mind-bogglingly powerful
>>>> feature
>>>> of D can realise its potential.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think a decent string-template library could probably come very close
>>> to
>>> the proposal without needing any language changes at all:
>>>
>>> string get_set(T, string name)()
>>> {
>>>        return
>>>        q{
>>>            @type _ at name;
>>>
>>>            @type @name ()
>>>            {
>>>                return _ at name;
>>>            }
>>>
>>>            @type @name (@type @name)
>>>            {
>>>                return _ at name = @name;
>>>            }
>>>        }.replace( ["@type": T.stringof, "@name": name] );
>>> }
>>>
>>> class Foo
>>> {
>>>        mixin(get_set!(int, "bar")());
>>> }
>>>
>>> There are definitely some things about the proposal that are better than
>>> with this, but I just wanted to point out that the value of the proposal
>>> should probably be evaluated against something roughly like the above
>>> rather
>>> than something that does a bunch of procedural string splicing.
>>
>> The whole point of the idea was to get rid of the strings and the mixin
>> expression (as it looks like to day).
>>
>
> While I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of getting rid of the strings,
> I guess I don't really see what improvement your proposal provides other
> than not having to manually specify the mapping of "replace what identifier
> with what data".
>
> Getting rid of the "mixin" I see as a separate issue. We could just as
> easily say that given the function "string get_set(...)":
>
>      @get_set("int", "bar");
>      or
>      @get_set int bar;
>
> ...Is shorthand for, or is even the new syntax for:
>
>      mixin(get_set("int", "bar"));

That was my idea as well, that

@get_set("int", "bar");

could be translated into

mixin(get_set("int", "bar")); just like

just like scope statements are translated into try/catch/finally.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg