When porting c-code to D, I come consitently to the problem,
how to convert such a c-macro:

#define V(a,b,c) glVertex3d( a size, b size, c size );
#define N(a,b,c) glNormal3d( a, b, c );
N( 1.0, 0.0, 0.0); V(+,-,+); V(+,-,-); V(+,+,-); V(+,+,+);
...

Ok, I could just write it out, but that's not the case.
Sometimes I just want to keep it small and clear as in this example.
I've started with some static functions and use it in mixins:

static string V(string a, string b, string c) {
	return "glVertex3d("~a~" size, "~b~" size, "~c~" size)";	
}
static string N(string a, string b, string c) {
	return "glNormal3d("~a~","~b~","~c~");";
}


But I wonder, if there is another clean solution for this?
Any regards.

Matthias

Am 15.09.2011, 13:37 Uhr, schrieb Matthias Pleh <user@example.net>:

> When porting c-code to D, I come consitently to the problem,
> how to convert such a c-macro:
>
> #define V(a,b,c) glVertex3d( a size, b size, c size );
> #define N(a,b,c) glNormal3d( a, b, c );
> N( 1.0, 0.0, 0.0); V(+,-,+); V(+,-,-); V(+,+,-); V(+,+,+);
> ...
>
> Ok, I could just write it out, but that's not the case.
> Sometimes I just want to keep it small and clear as in this example.
> I've started with some static functions and use it in mixins:
>
> static string V(string a, string b, string c) {
> 	return "glVertex3d("~a~" size, "~b~" size, "~c~" size)";	
> }
> static string N(string a, string b, string c) {
> 	return "glNormal3d("~a~","~b~","~c~");";
> }

If you are willing to write V(+1,-1,+1) instead you can just turn them into functions.
Also by static function you probably mean private in D.

On 15.09.2011 13:48, Trass3r wrote:
> If you are willing to write V(+1,-1,+1) instead you can just turn them
> into functions.
really a good point! :)

> Also by static function you probably mean private in D.
No, I meant for mixin I nead static functions, but I just realized,
it also works without the static keyword.

>> Also by static function you probably mean private in D.
> No, I meant for mixin I nead static functions, but I just realized,
> it also works without the static keyword.

I think static has no meaning in global scope, only in function scope where it tells the compiler you don't want a closure.