New syntax for string mixins

[Don]

VladD2 wrote:
> Don Wrote:
> 
>>> I 
>>> think VladD2 is right: You need to keep track of both "current" system and 
>>> "target" system. Unfortunately, there is some information about the "target" 
>>> system the compile-time code wouldn't be able discern without giving it the 
>>> ability to run code (RPC? Virtualization? Really, really good emulator?) on 
>>> the target system, but then again, that's a limitation with any 
>>> cross-compiling scenario.
>> Note that for this to work at all, the compiler needs to be able to 
>> generate exectuable code for platform X as well as for Y -- that is, it 
>> needs to include two back-ends.
> 
> If the macros have been compiled and are in binary (executable) form, the compiler must only be able to generate code for platform X,

Yes, but it's not a compiler for platform X! It's only a compiler for 
platform Y.

> and run macros (execute code from DLL). This is exactly what makes Nemerle compiler.

The .NET system always has a compiler for the platform it's running on. 
That's not necessarily true for D compilers.

> In this case, compiling of the same macros looks like any other compilation process (on the platform X for the platform Y).
> 
> 
>> I don't think it's quite the same. In a makefile, every executable is 
>> listed, and so you can have some degree of control over it. 
> 
> Trust to rmdir ... lol!
> And what about NAnt or MSBuild which can have binary extensions?
> 
> I think, you are completely wrong.
> 
>> But in this 
>> scenario, the compiler is making calls to arbitrary shared libraries 
>> with arbitrary parameters.
>> It means the compiler cannot be trusted *at all*.
> 
> The experience of Lisp (50 years!) and Nemerel (about 6 years) shows that the ability to access any library - is not a problem. 

I don't think Nemerle has been sufficiently widely used, to be able to 
draw strong conclusions from it. The Lisp argument is strong though.

 > This is a huge advantage.
> 
> And limit the possibility of a macro, you can simply forbidding them to use some libraries. 

I hope you're right, because it's indeed a powerful feature. But I'd 
want to hear the opinion of a security expert.
In particular, if it can be shown that it's exactly the same as Lisp, I 
would be convinced.