Will macros just be syntactic sugar?

[Jari-Matti Mäkelä]

Davidl wrote:
> macro (Token... tokens)
> {
>      static if (tokens[0].ID != Token.LParen)
>     pragma(error, `( expected`);
>      else static if (tokens[1].ID != Token.Identifier)
>         pragma(error, `identifer expected`);
>      else static if (tokens[2].ID != Token.RParen)
>         pragma(error, ) expected`);
>      else static if (tokens[3].toChars != `:=`)
>         pragma(error, `:= expected`);
>      static if (tokens[4].ID != Token.LBracket)
>     pragma(error, `( expected`);
>      else static if (tokens[5].ID != Token.Identifier)
>         pragma(error, `identifer expected`);
>      else static if (tokens[6].ID != Token.RBracket)
>         pragma(error, ) expected`);
>      else static if (tokens[7].ID != Token.Identifier)
>         pragma(error, `identifer expected`);
>      else static if (tokens[8].ID != Token.plus)
>         pragma(error, `+ operator expected`);
>      else static if (tokens[9].ID != Token.Identifier)
>         pragma(error, `identifer expected`);
>      alias token[1] arg0;
>      alias token[5] arg1;
>      alias token[7] arg2;
>      alias token[9] arg3;
>      arg0[arg1] = arg2 + arg3;
> }
> 
> seems the above is more valuable.

Huh, that looks awful. This kind of code surely needs some pattern
matching magic. Should we add it to D 2.0 wishlist too.