Discussion Thread: DIP 1036--String Interpolation Tuple Literals--Community Review Round 2

[Arafel]

On 4/2/21 17:15, Meta wrote:
> However, if you want a tuple sequence as described in the DIP, you can 
> simply call a (probably compiler-supplied) helper method; maybe it 
> doesn't even have to be new: why not .tupleof?
> 
> auto apples = 2;
> auto bananas = 3;
> 
> auto s1 = i"I have ${apples + bananas} fruit";
> static assert(is(typeof(s1) == string));
> 
> auto s2 = i"I have ${apples + bananas} fruit".tupleof;
> 
> Then we can hide all the complexity of interpolated sequences behind the 
> .tupleof (or whatever we decide on) magic property.

Could this be made so it's transparent to the user of a library?

I.e. in the SQL case, the user of a library just types:

```
auto result = connection.execute(i"SELECT * FROM foo WHERE bar = ${baz}");
```

instead of

```
auto result = connection.execute(i"SELECT * FROM foo WHERE bar = 
${baz}".tupleof);
```

If it has to be explicit, how would the signature of 
Connection.execute(...) look like? How would the user easily know that 
the function expects an interpolated literal, just by looking at it?