Metacode mechanics

[Bruno Medeiros]

Don Clugston wrote:
> Craig Black wrote:
>>
>> Compile-time reflection would be very nice.  I'm not sure I understand 
>> why array literals would be a requirement for this.  Am I missing 
>> something?
> 
> It's because we can't have compile-time constant folding of [], except 
> for char arrays, until we get array literals. Compile-time reflection 
> _could_ be done without using arrays, but I think it's the most natural 
> way of doing it, anything else would require new syntax or be a bit clunky?
 >

Why would it requite clunky syntax? I don't see why array literals would 
affect this. How exactly are you thinking compile-time reflection should 
work? (in terms of usage)
In fact I don't see how compile-time reflection could work at all 
(regardless of array literals). I tried to convert my runtime reflection 
example in the Reflection thread, but some things wouldn't work, one of 
which being that one cannot use a TypeInfo as a type (for instance in a 
declaration or something).

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
"Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to 
be... unnatural."