James Dunne wrote:
> Tom S wrote:
>> I'm getting the impression that we're trying to clone the language functionality into the compile-time part. We had a nifty proposal some time ago which, if implemented, might ease the pain.
>> The idea was to allow a special modifier for functions which would say that they could be evaluated at compile-time. Thus the code would look just like ordinary runtime code, but being executed at compile-time.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, that was mine =P.  Use the colon operator to differentiate compile-time properties from run-time properties!  Either that or it was my '{%' ... '%}' block idea which was to execute code at compile time (though I never proposed this for D).

Sorry to disappoint you, James, but that wasn't your proposal :P It was Bill Baxter who originally started the discussion here:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/23175.html

Eventually, Walter commented:
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/24126



-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d-pu s+: a-->----- C+++$>++++ UL P+ L+ E--- W++ N++ o? K? w++ !O !M V? PS- PE- Y PGP t 5 X? R tv-- b DI- D+ G e>+++ h>++ !r !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/

Tom S wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> 
>> BCS wrote:
>>
>>> I am still wondering why templates are being used for this. Is it just that they are the only tool at hand?
>>
>>
>>
>> Pretty much.  The goal is to be able to generate optimal code at compile-time with minimal user effort... and to do so using language features instead of a fancy IDE.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting the impression that we're trying to clone the language functionality into the compile-time part. We had a nifty proposal some time ago which, if implemented, might ease the pain.
> The idea was to allow a special modifier for functions which would say that they could be evaluated at compile-time. Thus the code would look just like ordinary runtime code, but being executed at compile-time.
> 
> 

They already have such a thing in Common Lisp and Scheme.  Its called a macro, and its the thing most Lispers refuse to give up to take another language.

-DavidM

Tom S wrote:
> James Dunne wrote:
> 
>> Tom S wrote:
>>
>>> I'm getting the impression that we're trying to clone the language functionality into the compile-time part. We had a nifty proposal some time ago which, if implemented, might ease the pain.
>>> The idea was to allow a special modifier for functions which would say that they could be evaluated at compile-time. Thus the code would look just like ordinary runtime code, but being executed at compile-time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken, that was mine =P.  Use the colon operator to differentiate compile-time properties from run-time properties!  Either that or it was my '{%' ... '%}' block idea which was to execute code at compile time (though I never proposed this for D).
> 
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you, James, but that wasn't your proposal :P It was Bill Baxter who originally started the discussion here:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/23175.html
> 
> Eventually, Walter commented:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/24126
> 
> 
> 

Ah geezz...

-- 
Regards,
James Dunne