• John Colvin (2/2) Jun 28 2013 Is there any way of getting the body of a function as a string?
• bearophile (5/8) Jun 28 2013 I think that currently there isn't a simple way to do it. What is
• John Colvin (7/15) Jun 28 2013 I want to create a function with an identical body but different
• Namespace (4/4) Jun 28 2013 And why don't you call the function from your clone function?
• John Colvin (5/9) Jun 28 2013 Because the body of the new function needs to see the parameters
• bearophile (7/9) Jun 28 2013 I think to curry a function all you need to know is its
• monarch_dodra (29/38) Jun 28 2013 Oh, hey! I remember participating in writing some of that :)
• Namespace (1/2) Jun 29 2013 Only Involved? You've written it. I've added only a few things. :)
• Jacob Carlborg (5/7) Jun 29 2013 I remember someone someone modified DMD and added a .codeof property or
• bearophile (6/8) Jun 29 2013 If there are enough use cases for it, then perhaps it's worth
• JS (2/10) Jul 04 2013 There is, or at least there will be!

"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

Is there any way of getting the body of a function as a string? 
(Obviously only when the source code is available to the compiler)

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

John Colvin:

 Is there any way of getting the body of a function as a string? 
 (Obviously only when the source code is available to the 
 compiler)

I think that currently there isn't a simple way to do it. What is 
your use case?

Bye,
bearophile

"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 13:18:39 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 John Colvin:

 Is there any way of getting the body of a function as a 
 string? (Obviously only when the source code is available to 
 the compiler)

 I think that currently there isn't a simple way to do it. What 
 is your use case?

 Bye,
 bearophile

I want to create a function with an identical body but different 
parameters: e.g. given a function

int foo(int a){ return a+1; }

automatically create a new function

int foo(int a)(){ return a+1; }


I'm trying to implement a sort of automatic compile-time currying.

"Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> writes:

And why don't you call the function from your clone function?

Maybe this could help you: http://dpaste.1azy.net/fork/597affd2
I used it to generate my own rvalue functions because of the lack 
of rvalue references.

"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 13:55:54 UTC, Namespace wrote:
 And why don't you call the function from your clone function?

Because the body of the new function needs to see the parameters 
as known at compile-time.

 Maybe this could help you: http://dpaste.1azy.net/fork/597affd2
 I used it to generate my own rvalue functions because of the 
 lack of rvalue references.

Thanks, that was helpful for a few hints, but it doesn't fix this 
particular problem.

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

John Colvin:

 Because the body of the new function needs to see the 
 parameters as known at compile-time.

I think to curry a function all you need to know is its 
signature. And in std.traits probably there is all the 
functionality to see all kinds of function arguments, their 
names, tags, etc.

Bye,
bearophile

"monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 20:50:55 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
 On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 13:55:54 UTC, Namespace wrote:
 And why don't you call the function from your clone function?

 Because the body of the new function needs to see the 
 parameters as known at compile-time.

 Maybe this could help you: http://dpaste.1azy.net/fork/597affd2
 I used it to generate my own rvalue functions because of the 
 lack of rvalue references.

 Thanks, that was helpful for a few hints, but it doesn't fix 
 this particular problem.

Oh, hey! I remember participating in writing some of that :)

Yeah, with traits, you can get enough info to extract all the 
information you want about the function to redeclare it any way 
you want.

The only thing you *can't* get is... the body!

If you have access to the source code of the function, you could 
redeclare it as a token string? eg:

before:

int foo(int a)
{
     return a+1;
}

after:
enum fooString =
q{
     return a+1;
};

int foo(int a){mixin(fooString);}
int foo()(int a){mixin(fooString);}

Yeah... not a great solution.

--------

The only way I could see it happen would be with a compile 
__trait ?

Does the compiler even have the info, or is it completely 
obliterated after the lex phase?

The compiler *should* have the info, since it can pinpoint the 
coordinates of compilation errors.

But I wouldn't know too much.

"Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> writes:

 Oh, hey! I remember participating in writing some of that :)

Only Involved? You've written it. I've added only a few things. :)

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2013-06-28 14:46, John Colvin wrote:
 Is there any way of getting the body of a function as a string?
 (Obviously only when the source code is available to the compiler)

I remember someone someone modified DMD and added a .codeof property or 
similar. It was fairly easy.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Jacob Carlborg:

 I remember someone someone modified DMD and added a .codeof 
 property or similar. It was fairly easy.

If there are enough use cases for it, then perhaps it's worth 
putting both the enhancement request for ".codeof" and its 
relative patch in Bugzilla.

Bye,
bearophile

"JS" <js.mdnq gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 10:38:57 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg:

 I remember someone someone modified DMD and added a .codeof 
 property or similar. It was fairly easy.

 If there are enough use cases for it, then perhaps it's worth 
 putting both the enhancement request for ".codeof" and its 
 relative patch in Bugzilla.

 Bye,
 bearophile

There is, or at least there will be!