DIP78 - macros without syntax extensions

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d]

On 2015-05-27 14:17, Kagamin wrote:

> Well, that's the point: the function is a normal function, only some of
> its parameters require specially prepared arguments, this can't be
> missed as soon as arguments are passed to the respective parameters.

I prefer to be more explicit in this case, especially since the keyword 
is already available.

>> In that case I would prefer the "macro" keyword. It's already a
>> reserved, for exactly this purpose, so it will be backwards compatible.
>
> Well, maybe, I just didn't need the keyword.

I don't need it either, it's just what I preferred.

> No, passing of Context is not proposed.

The feeling I have it that it's hard to know if it's needed or not 
without implementing/using the macro system.

> I mean, the template instantiation syntax can inform the compiler that
> the expression is evaluated at compile time with possible code
> generation, so that the compiler is prepared to what macro will do. This
> resembles similarity between macros and templates. If macros can use
> existing syntax of a function call, I see no problem if they use another
> existing syntax.

True, but how would that the syntax look like for template macro, if 
possible?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg