Discussion on static reflection syntax in C++

[Patrick Schluter]

On Monday, 22 February 2021 at 16:47:13 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Monday, 22 February 2021 at 16:27:49 UTC, Andrei 
> Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Of possible interest:
>>
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2320r0.pdf
>
> Good this is proposed for C++ and not for D. The 
> complexity/benefit ratio of adding another meaning of ^ and 
> [:refl:] is rather high. Citing * and & as models for ^ is 
> reasonable only to someone that has not tried to teach others 
> to program. At least to me, this is horrible:
>
> f<([:Refl:])>();

aka as
<:Rofl:> <º))))><

>
> In complete seriousness, it would be better to use emoji than 
> to write things like that.