opMixin or mixin function templates with convenience operator?
snarwin at gmail.com
Thu Dec 12 21:40:33 UTC 2019
On Thursday, 12 December 2019 at 19:42:59 UTC, Ola Fosheim
> On Thursday, 12 December 2019 at 19:08:40 UTC, Paul Backus
>> I don't think it's any harder to use than the `mixin` keyword,
>> though I'll concede that it's more cryptic to read and harder
>> to search for in the documentation.
> I think a solution for string interpolation has to be very
> close to what other languages offer, maybe it would have to be
> made a special case for strings.
I agree. Personally, I'm a fan of Adam Ruppe's proposal.
A mixin operator would have applications beyond just string
interpolation, though. For example, it could make pattern
matching a bit more palatable:
a[i .. j].match!(
#pattern!` => false`,
#pattern!`[xs...] => search(xs, target)`
>> Are you proposing a language-level distinction between "string
>> that contains D code for mixing in" and "string that contains
>> some other kind of data"?
> Yes, I guess it would be possible to type a mixin-string in
> such a way that it is only allowed to represent a lambda
> function that is being called. As in typing the string to a
> function signature, would be one step.
Is there any actual difference between mixing in a bare
expression vs. an immediately-called lambda function that
evaluates to the same expression? Forcing string mixins to
represent lambdas in particular seems needlessly restrictive.
More information about the Digitalmars-d