The state of string interpolation

[o]

On Thursday, 6 December 2018 at 22:53:26 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 December 2018 at 22:34:14 UTC, o wrote:
>> Just think how much nicer this is (lowering to a string):
>> `foo(i"My name is $name");`
>>
>> Compared to this (lowering to a tuple, requiring a conversion 
>> to a string):
>> ```
>> import std.conv: text;
>> foo(text(i"My name is $name"));
>> ```
>
> You can write `foo` in such a way that the user never has to 
> manually insert a call to `text`:
>
> void foo(string s)
> {
>     // do whatever
> }
>
> void foo(Args...)(Args args)
> {
>     import std.conv: text;
>     foo(text(args));
> }
>
> In fact, you can even encapsulate this pattern in a mixin:
>
> template interpArgs(alias fun)
> {
>     import std.format: format;
>
>     enum interpArgs = q{
>         auto %1$s(Args...)(Args args)
>         {
>             import std.conv: text;
>             return %1$s(text(args));
>         }
>     }.format(__traits(identifier, fun));
> }
>
> mixin(interpArgs!foo);

I think that this just further proves my point. In order use an 
interpolated string as a real string, you ended up going back 
down this rabbit-hole of mixins/libraries/templetes. There would 
be no need for this if `foo(i"a is $a)` was the same as `foo("a 
is 12")`.