Discussion on static reflection syntax in C++

[bachmeier]

On Monday, 22 February 2021 at 16:27:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> Of possible interest:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2320r0.pdf

Good this is proposed for C++ and not for D. The 
complexity/benefit ratio of adding another meaning of ^ and 
[:refl:] is rather high. Citing * and & as models for ^ is 
reasonable only to someone that has not tried to teach others to 
program. At least to me, this is horrible:

f<([:Refl:])>();

In complete seriousness, it would be better to use emoji than to 
write things like that.