__FUNCTION__ implemented with mixins and mangles

[Robert Fraser]

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> 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.

__FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__, etc. are more often used for *logging* 
than for debugging. Of course, ideally, the logger would be able to 
identify all this stuff on its own (i.e. from a stack trace), but in a 
compiled language this is pretty tricky (impossible on Windows without 
debug symbols).