New syntax for string mixins

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-12-16 11:18, Pelle Månsson wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 11:00 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Jonathan M Davis"<jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message
>> news:mailman.1035.1292441722.21107.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:27:47 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Honestly, I don't see much gain in using @ rather than mixin(). It's a
>>> little
>>> less typing, but that's it.
>>
>> It does seem like a small difference, just replacing "mixin" with "@" and
>> removing one layer of parens. But I think that extra layer of parens,
>> minor
>> as it seems, makes a big difference in the readability (and
>> "typeability")
>> of mixin invocations. Those extra parens do get to be a real bother,
>> major
>> visual noise at least to my eyes.
>>
>
> I agree with this. Actually, just removing the parenthesis would be a
> huge gain for me.
>
>>> And it precludes stuff like mixin("lhs " ~ op ~ "
>>> rhs") like happens all the time in overloaded operator functions.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see why these shouldn't work:
>>
>> @"int foo;";
>> return @("lhs " ~ op ~ " rhs");
>>
>> At least with just the "@" part of the proposal. Maybe the delegate thing
>> might make it tricker, I dunno.
>>
>
> This could work, but I don't think anyone is suggesting completely
> replacing the mixin. I think @ could be a function/template thing, and
> have strings in a more explicit mixin"";
>
> Then again, inconsistency sucks.

The whole point of the idea/suggestion was to get rid of the strings. 
Then if the syntax I've suggested is translated into the string mixin 
syntax we have now then I would be fine with that.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg