On Friday, 13 December 2019 at 17:00:29 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> The youtube link in my previous post has a time code that will bring you directly to the start of the segment on macros. In that segment, Walter explains in detail how macros would be expanded, with worked examples on the whiteboard. Pattern matching is also discussed.

I have only time to skim over it, but it looks very basic.

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 7:25 PM Paul Backus via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>onally, I prefer this rewriting approach to something like
> opMixin because it doesn't require you to declare a struct as boilerplate, and it works "out of the box" for both templates and CTFE, as well as "naked" strings:
>
>      #foo!(args) => mixin(foo!args)
>      #foo(args)  => mixin(foo(args))
>      #someCode   => mixin(someCode)

AFAIK this is not possible. I have come with something like this many
years ago, but if I am remember correctly Walter said # is already
used for something else.
So we would need to change it to some other character

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 9:33 PM Daniel Kozak <kozzi11@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 7:25 PM Paul Backus via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> >
> >onally, I prefer this rewriting approach to something like
> > opMixin because it doesn't require you to declare a struct as boilerplate, and it works "out of the box" for both templates and CTFE, as well as "naked" strings:
> >
> >      #foo!(args) => mixin(foo!args)
> >      #foo(args)  => mixin(foo(args))
> >      #someCode   => mixin(someCode)
>
> AFAIK this is not possible. I have come with something like this many
> years ago, but if I am remember correctly Walter said # is already
> used for something else.
> So we would need to change it to some other character

https://dlang.org/spec/lex.html#special-token-sequence

On Friday, 13 December 2019 at 13:15:12 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 December 2019 at 14:28:52 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
>
>> If it is anything like AST macros, then I wouldn't expect Walter to be that supportive of it...
>
> I think one of the reasons AST macros are not liked and that this idea will not be liked either is because there's basically no visual indication on the calling side that some code will be mixed in.
>
> --
> /Jacob Carlborg

Won’t the pound symbol denote that from the calling side?

On 2019-12-14 00:23, Aliak wrote:

> Won’t the pound symbol denote that from the calling side?

I'm not sure it's enough.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg