feature request: __ARGS__ for logging (cf __FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNC___)

[Timon Gehr]

On 02/05/2013 06:08 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-02-05 16:24, Timon Gehr wrote:
>
>> I'd prefer if it needn't be.
>>
>> macro match(Context context, Ast ast, string code){
>>      ...
>>      if(...) context.error("invalid syntax", code[a..b]);
>>      // (slice of code describes exact location where error
>>      // is shown to user at the call site.)
>>      ...
>> }
>
> The whole point of AST macros is that the compiler will do the lexing
> and parsing of the code. It will then just return an AST and it's up to
> the developer of the macro to implement the semantics.
>

If it's just about lexing and parsing, you need a lexer and a parser, 
not a macro.

> If the code is just passed as a string to the macro

That's just one option. Not all macros need to add syntax.

> you would then need to lex and parse in addition to implementing the semantics

If one chooses to do so. Parser generators can be provided.

> and we would be no better than the current situation with string mixins.
>

We surely would be better.