__FUNCTION__ implemented with mixins and mangles

[Ary Borenszweig]

zsxxsz escribió:
> == Quote from Jarrett Billingsley (jarrett.billingsley at gmail.com)'s article
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 9:46 PM, zsxxsz<zhengshuxin at hexun.com> wrote:
>>> It's good. But I think it should be implement by the DMD compiler, just l
>> ike
>>> __FILE__  and __LINE__. __FUNCTION__ should be the base D language synt
>> ax same as
>>> __FILE__, __LINE__, in C99, they're all the compiler's things to get thes
>> e and the
>>> compiler do these more easily than any library.
>>>
>> I completely agree, but Walter and Andrei's argument against it is -
>> where does it end?  Do we need __PACKAGE__, __MODULE__, __TYPE__,
>> __TEMPLATE__, etc. etc. etc.?  And I agree with them too - but you
>> know, it'd be nice to actually get some results on these things once
>> in a while instead of a bunch of bullshit bikeshed discussions.
>> Sheesh.
> 
> What is the main use of __FILE__, __LINE__ and __FUNCTION__? Many people just use
> them for logging easily, including me. In some famous server such as Postfix, you
> may see 'const char *myname = "xxx"; ... msg_info("%s: xxx", myname);' in many
> files, it's a time cost for the programmer to do so. These are base requirments
> for D compiler.

I never had to use them in other languages. Why? Because debugging 
support in them is excelent. So maybe enhancing debugging support for D 
is better than adding a couple of keywords just to make *printf 
debugging* better.