• Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> Jan 21 2009
• Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> Jan 21 2009
• Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> Jan 21 2009
• Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> Jan 21 2009

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Check this out!
class Foo { int someField; }
pragma (msg, Foo.tupleof[0].stringof); // int
pragma (msg, Foo.tupleof[0].mangleof); // someField

Why is this? It's counterintuitive.

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Christopher Wright wrote:
 Check this out!
 class Foo { int someField; }
 pragma (msg, Foo.tupleof[0].stringof); // int
 pragma (msg, Foo.tupleof[0].mangleof); // someField
 
 Why is this? It's counterintuitive.


Oops, no. mangleof does report the mangled name of the input string. 
It's just that mangleof(i) == i, so my testing incorrectly reported the 
right result.

Now I need to find a CTFE-able demangle. I think ddl has one.

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Christopher Wright wrote:
 Christopher Wright wrote:
 Check this out!
 class Foo { int someField; }
 pragma (msg, Foo.tupleof[0].stringof); // int
 pragma (msg, Foo.tupleof[0].mangleof); // someField

 Why is this? It's counterintuitive.


 Oops, no. mangleof does report the mangled name of the input string. 
 It's just that mangleof(i) == i, so my testing incorrectly reported the 
 right result.


No, I'm wrong again. mangleof reports the mangled version of the type.

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Christopher Wright wrote:
 Check this out!
 class Foo { int someField; }
 pragma (msg, Foo.tupleof[0].stringof); // int
 pragma (msg, Foo.tupleof[0].mangleof); // someField
 
 Why is this? It's counterintuitive.


Okay, no, this example is a shorter version of something else that 
exemplified this behavior:
foreach (i, field; Foo.init.tupleof)
    pragma (msg, field.stringof);

This has the results I described. However, the following has the 
expected result:
pragma (msg, Foo.init.tupleof[0].stringof);