Discussion Thread: DIP 1036--String Interpolation Tuple Literals--Community Review Round 2

[Dukc]

On Monday, 1 February 2021 at 16:10:46 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Monday, 1 February 2021 at 16:00:54 UTC, Dukc wrote:
>> Perhaps mixins can be special case to invoke `idup` if any of 
>> their arguments are instanced from `interp`.
>
> Yeah, the grammar could always just special case overload 
> mixin(Interpolated).
>
> Or .stringof could be redefined so like interp!"foo".stringof 
> == "foo" or whatever.

One problem: `.stringof` is supposed to be a source 
representation. "foo" in source represents a string, not part of 
an interpolated string.

>
> .... or just ban it. Make mixin(i"...") a compile error so the 
> user can do their own thing.

I advise against that.

Quoting https://dlang.org/blog/2019/10/15/my-vision-of-ds-future/:
> String interpolation
> 
> I was initially against this, but the more I think about it the 
> more it seems to make
> sense for D. Why? String mixins. Code generation is one of D’s 
> greatest strengths, and
> token strings enable visually pleasing blocks of code that are 
> actually “just strings”.
> String interpolation would make them vastly easier to use. As 
> it happens, there’s a draft > DIP for it in the pipeline.

You don't want to require the user add an extra symbol for every 
interpolated string in it's most important use case.