opMixin or mixin function templates with convenience operator?

[Daniel Kozak]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 9:33 PM Daniel Kozak <kozzi11 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 7:25 PM Paul Backus via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> >
> >onally, I prefer this rewriting approach to something like
> > opMixin because it doesn't require you to declare a struct as
> > boilerplate, and it works "out of the box" for both templates and
> > CTFE, as well as "naked" strings:
> >
> >      #foo!(args) => mixin(foo!args)
> >      #foo(args)  => mixin(foo(args))
> >      #someCode   => mixin(someCode)
>
> AFAIK this is not possible. I have come with something like this many
> years ago, but if I am remember correctly Walter said # is already
> used for something else.
> So we would need to change it to some other character

https://dlang.org/spec/lex.html#special-token-sequence