opMixin or mixin function templates with convenience operator?

[mipri]

On Friday, 13 December 2019 at 14:29:48 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Friday, 13 December 2019 at 13:53:00 UTC, mipri wrote:
>> So generic solutions are not that hard to think of, and the
>> idea of languages where normal user words can participate in
>> compilation to this degree have been around for a long time.
>> The problem is that nobody wants to even think about touching
>> "other people's code" in the resulting family of languages.
>
> That has nothing to do with AST manipulation.

"generic solutions" vs. "specific solutions" has everything to
do with AST manipulation vs. a specific string interpolation
method.

> Forth was designed for taking minimal space and was edited in 
> non-scrollable screens of ~1000 characters. You can't be more 
> terse. Postscript is very close to Forth though, and you can 
> write clean code in Postscript.

What has absolutely nothing to do with anything, is this.

> Lisp was also designed as an exercise in minimalism. Lisp and 
> Forth are basically the two of the oldest languages still in 
> use. If anything that shows that they got something right... 
> but arcane obviously.

And this.

> If you want to discuss modern "AST" based languages you should 
> take a look at modern Term Rewriting languages:
>
> http://maude.cs.illinois.edu/w/index.php/The_Maude_System
>
> https://agraef.github.io/pure-lang/

And, amazingly, this.

Please try harder to read what people say instead of
responding to keywords like 'Forth' and 'Lisp.

That's impolite. I think what you've done here is also impolite.