proposal: a new string litteral to embed variables in a string

[Timothee Cour]

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-11-06 23:48, Timothee Cour wrote:
>
>  As I mentioned in my OT, this is what I already have implemented ("I've
>> actually already implemented this feature via a mixin, and find it
>> extremely useful, but ... "); and I did take care of proper escaping,
>> etc. I am using it extensively, however the requirement for using a
>> mixin makes things uglier than they should:
>>
>> * cryptic ctfe error msgs upon wrong variable names
>> * mixin can't be used in UFCS chains; additional () nesting
>> to the point that I only use it in cases where the alternative is uglier.
>> * potentially more strain on ctfe
>> * mixins in general should be used sparingly
>>
>> Sure we can use existing mixins to fill this need, but to me this is
>> exactly the same as the situation with lambda literal syntax:
>>
>> a=>a*2
>> instead of
>> (a){return a*2;}
>>
>> or lazy parameters:
>> void fun(lazy string a)
>> vs:
>> void fun(string delegate() a)
>>
>> A little of syntax sugar can provide huge benifits.
>> It's use case would apply to all assert error messages, DSLs etc.
>>
>
> I agree with you, but I rather have a more general solution. That is, AST
> macros.
>
>
I would love to have AST macros too, but how do they help for the problem
at hand? (eg use cases in OT + DSL). Like others mentioned, the feature is
not crazy, it is present in most languages.




> --
> /Jacob Carlborg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20131107/eb3415e0/attachment.html>