Don Clugston wrote:
> Isn't it always going to be true that the scope where stringof is applied, could be different from where it is mixed in?

Yes.

> That's why I figured that the concept of symbolnameof (the minimal descriptor in the scope) was different from qualifiednameof (valid in any scope). Of course, you've got access to much more information than I did, so perhaps there's a cleaner solution.

It obviously needs more work <g>.

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Erm, shouldn't T.stringof be "T" and not "Abc" nor even "Foo.Bar.Abc"?

There wouldn't be any point to that.