Motivation for compile time function execution

[Robby]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Miles wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Miles wrote:
>>>> Is there some rationale for not using an MD5 hash of the string?
>>> It's not reversible - no pretty printing, no demangling, etc.
>>
>> For common usage, does it really need to be reversible?
> 
> Problem is, I can't tell when the uncommon use is required.
> 
>> Pretty printing and demangling are only used for debugging purposes, so,
>> this information should go to debug sections of the object file, that
>> are not loaded into memory unless you are running the debugger. And let
>> the debugger use that information to extract what the symbol means.
> 
> Don has based some runtime reflection code on demangling names.

Considering that, will it be fair to say that future reflection 
capabilities will be based off of demangling? Or is there any other 
ideas up the sleeve about how it's going to be implemented. (trying not 
to go way off subject, but feeding general curiosity)