# More macro sugar?

**URL:** <https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/more-macro-sugar/355>\
**Category:** ideas (deprecated)\
**Created:** [August 8, 2014, 7:54pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/more-macro-sugar/355 "2014-08-08T19:54:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dobkeratops](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/internals.rust-lang.org/dobkeratops/32/4577_2.png) [@dobkeratops](https://internals.rust-lang.org/u/dobkeratops)\
**Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 7:54pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/more-macro-sugar/355/1 "2014-08-08T19:54:58Z")

</div>

If macros are to be used inplace of other features like n-ary functions and lots of other special case sugar, might it make sense to enhance them a little to fit visually with other syntax forms. The suggestions here can all be done with regular macros; these would just be ways to make their invocations read more naturally alongside inbuilt syntax.

**[1](http://discuss.rust-lang.org/t/method-chaining-special-form/342) ‘method macros’ $self.foo!(…)** e.g. for n-ary wrappers for method calls. also might be nice for a chaining macro([see other thread](http://discuss.rust-lang.org/t/method-chaining-special-form/342)). put a $self in there.

`foo.chain!(push(1); push(2); push(3)); //expands as {foo.push(1); foo.push(2); foo.push(3)}`

Would also allow macros _themselves_ to be chained. `foo.bar!(...).baz!(...);`

Not suggesting any sort of polymorphism here, just positional convince, being able to make things read nicer.

**[2] multiple brackets… foo!(…){…}** eg cfor, or recovering something closer to old ‘do’ notation. Fight nesting levels

```
cfor!(i=0;i<10;i++) {
   loop body...
}

```

**[3] preceding ident… foo! Bar { … }** eg custom declarations, looking closer to inbuilt declaration forms

```
def_annotated_struct! MyStruct { 
    field1:type1,
    field2:type2...
};  
// rolls a struct with associated metadata

```

potentially useful combinations …

```
// rolls a struct and 
// a default constructor MyStruct::new(args..){ 
// MyStruct{field1:initializer-expressoin1,field2:..}}

def_struct! MyStruct(args..) { 
    field1:type1=...initializer-expression1,
    field1:type2=...initializer-expression2,
  ... //
}

collection.for_each!(x) {.. closure body..} //for_each(collection, |x|{...body..}

```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ericson2314](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/internals.rust-lang.org/ericson2314/32/246_2.png) [@Ericson2314](https://internals.rust-lang.org/u/Ericson2314)\
**Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 9:41pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/more-macro-sugar/355/2 "2014-08-08T21:41:31Z")

</div>

This all sounds good for me. There have been a number of “ergonomics” RFCs, and I think it would be shame to bloat the core language with ergonomics after the team has done such a good job at shrinking the language over the last year. Changes like this go a long way into trying to reconcile ease of use, and a simple and elegant core language.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/internals.rust-lang.org/system/32/14092_2.png) [@system](https://internals.rust-lang.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 8:22am UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/more-macro-sugar/355/3 "2019-03-25T08:22:45Z")

</div>

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.