Thread overview | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
May 14, 2018 [Issue 2698] Parameterised identifier | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2698 Nick Treleaven <nick@geany.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nick@geany.org --- Comment #3 from Nick Treleaven <nick@geany.org> --- (In reply to Daniel Keep from comment #0) > int __ident(name)() { return __ident("_"~name~"storage"); } Wow, this was an insightful idea from 2009! It has recently been re-discovered in 2015: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1010.md#mixin-identifiers I prefer the __identifier(ident) syntax than mixin(ident), it's less noisy as: 1. it doesn't get highlighted as a keyword. 2. it's clearer what kind of token is being introduced. 3. it doesn't refine the idea of mixin to more than just expressions/statements (i.e. code, not an identifier). -- |
May 14, 2018 [Issue 2698] Syntax to parse an identifier from a string, instead of mixin() | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2698 Nick Treleaven <nick@geany.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Parameterised identifier |Syntax to parse an | |identifier from a string, | |instead of mixin() -- |
July 13, 2019 [Issue 2698] Syntax to parse an identifier from a string, instead of mixin() | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2698 Mathias LANG <pro.mathias.lang@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |pro.mathias.lang@gmail.com Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #4 from Mathias LANG <pro.mathias.lang@gmail.com> --- Closing as this would require a DIP and is not an actual bug. -- |
July 13, 2019 [Issue 2698] Syntax to parse an identifier from a string, instead of mixin() | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2698 --- Comment #5 from Nick Treleaven <nick@geany.org> --- Mathias: so feature requests aren't allowed anymore in bugzilla? It has been marked as an enhancement. -- |
July 16, 2019 [Issue 2698] Syntax to parse an identifier from a string, instead of mixin() | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2698 --- Comment #6 from Mathias LANG <pro.mathias.lang@gmail.com> --- Nick: A couple years ago, at DConf if memory serves me well, the usage of Bugzilla was discussed and it was mentioned that more enhancement requests should go to the DIP queue. I unfortunately don't remember the precise conversation, so I'll try to add more details of my interpretation: - Bugzilla should contain actionable item: if an item cannot be picked up by someone and acted on, it shouldn't be here. - Bugzilla should contain low-controversy items: if an item is controversial it is hardly a bug, but most likely an unintuitive behavior (e.g. `if (array)`). - Bugzilla items should describe problems, not solutions: as the former is a bug report and the later is a proposal. It does not mean that bug report are not free to suggest any solution they see fit, but they should focus on the issue. Essentially, this ensures that issues *can be closed*. This report IMO falls into the last category: it describes a situation and derive two use cases from it. The first use case, calling a C function which is not a valid D identifier, is covered (in what I would say a superior way) by `pragma(mangle)`. The second use case is also interesting, but would need a complete, structured proposal to be evaluated. For example, this issue was created at a time when `format` was most likely not CTFE-able. I'm fairly certain `q{}` did not exist either. Nowadays code generation is much simpler (while still far from perfect), and we should assess whether or not this enhancement still make sense. In any case, it would be an improvement over the current state of things, and would not allow to do anything that we can't do currently. I hope this is clear enough. If you disagree with that reasoning, feel free to continue the discussion and/or to re-open. -- |
July 16, 2019 [Issue 2698] Syntax to parse an identifier from a string, instead of mixin() | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2698 --- Comment #7 from Nick Treleaven <nick@geany.org> --- It seems feature requests without a dip champion will have to just exist in the memory of forum users then. One compromise would be to add a bugzilla resolution 'DIPNEEDED'. The point of this feature is to avoid writing the whole symbol inside a string just because you need an identifier name to be mixed in. -- |
January 31, 2022 [Issue 2698] Syntax to parse an identifier from a string, instead of mixin() | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2698 --- Comment #8 from Nick Treleaven <nick@geany.org> --- (In reply to Nick Treleaven from comment #3) > I prefer the __identifier(ident) syntax than mixin(ident) > ... > 3. it doesn't refine the idea of mixin to more than just > expressions/statements (i.e. code, not an identifier). Since then, string mixins can be used in place of a type: https://dlang.org/spec/type.html#mixin_types So it would be consistent to allow mixin identifiers too. They can also now take multiple arguments which are converted to strings and concatenated. I think these changes make using `mixin` a better choice for syntax. static foreach(n; [1,2,3]) { int mixin("foo", n) = n; } assert(foo1 == 1); (In reply to Nick Treleaven from comment #7) > The point of this feature is to avoid writing the whole symbol inside a string just because you need an identifier name to be mixed in. The whole *declaration* currently has to be in a string, often just because of the identifier for the declaration. -- |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation