mixin + CTFE, to big a hammer??
Hasan Aljudy
hasan.aljudy at gmail.com
Thu Mar 1 12:29:30 PST 2007
kris wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> I have been thinking about the new functionality added by the code
>> mixin and CTFE features and I'm thinking that they may be "to big a
>> hammer" for may jobs.
>>
>> Take my parser generator as an example. I don't think there would be
>> anything to gain by using mixin as the primary method of code
>> generation. Firstly, code generated this way will inherently be harder
>> to read and debug. Also it doesn't do anything that tuple iteration
>> doesn't do just as well.
>>
>> I will admit that there may be some things to be gained there by using
>> mixin code (the terminal and action call backs could benefit a lot
>> from this) but these are only minor changes. Also mixin code would be
>> invaluable for some more complicated cases.
>>
>> Why is this important? I think that many valuable types of code
>> generation would benefit more by improving the static control
>> structures (foreach/if/etc.) than they would from more mixin like
>> features.
>>
>> One feature I would like is a true static foreach, one that can
>> iterate over any built in type arrays or a tuple but does unrolling
>> and per-loop semantic analysis like with tuples. This, in conjunction
>> with CTFE, would make for huge improvements in what can readily be
>> accomplished by moving much of the processing of the code generator
>> input into function and out of templates.
>>
>> Basically, I'm saying that while mixin+CTFE is good from many things,
>> it shouldn't be pushed at the expense of the more mundane techniques.
>>
>> Just some thoughts, what do you all think?
>
>
> D mixin, in it's current guise, is about equivalent to crack-cocaine.
> Easily the worst thing that happened to the language, IMO.
>
> Just say no
Just give it time, wait for it to mature from experience.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce
mailing list