Also, IIRC, it is believed that string mixins with CTFE are potentially more powerful. I am under the assumption that Walter is taking the long view and waiting for the community to furnish their own powerful AST manipulation tools using the existing spec. I suspect that he is opposed to baking AST manipulation into the /language spec/, but is perfectly accepting of the notion of using AST manipulation to generate code, reduce boilerplate, implement exotic features and DSLs, and so on. Just don't complicate the core language any more than it already is. Sorry if I misrepresented you Walter; I can only make educated guesses ;)On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 08:19:13 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-11-05 17:55, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
Walter is far from convinced that AST manipulation is a good thing. You
would have to convince him first. His fear is that it will lead to
unreadable code, and everyone using her own personnal version of D.
AFAICT, nothing of the sort happened in Lisp (I mean, Lispers have
balkanization, but *not* due to AST manipulation).
You know, Walter did a talk about AST macros at the first D conference. The idea back then was to add AST macros, hence the "macro" keyword.