On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:27:57 -0400, davidl <dav...@nospam.org> wrote:
在 Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:20:53 +0800，davidl <dav...@nospam.org> 写道:
在 Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:24:04 +0800，Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> 写道:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:44:09 -0400, Leandro Lucarella
<llu...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't fully understand the example though. In writefln((v.qq =
5).i),
how is that B.i is assigned to 5 if the opDotExp("qq", 5) don't
propagate
the 5 to the new B()?
I think it translates to
opDotExp("qq") = 5
Without knowing the signature of qq, how is the compiler supposed to
infer that it is a property? In fact, I think this might be a
limitation of this syntax, you can't define dynamic properties.
I for one, can't really see a huge benefit, but then again, I don't
normally work with dynamic-type langauges. It looks to me like a huge
hole that the compiler will ignore bugs that would have been caught if
the methods were strongly typed:
Actually this can help ddl project to work more nicely. Consider you
can call plugin code directly without static bindings. And I believe
delphi COM variant use some similar trick. It allows you call COM
object without static bindings. Sometimes it's troublesome to get the
static bindings, and you only need one piece of little function(you
won't need the whole interface).
DDBI can also benefit from it.
Consider the use case:
myRow.Col1 = "abc";
Yes, this case does make sense, but I would still probably rather write a
statically-typed wrapper.
Plus it's not terribly hard to write:
myRow.set("Col1", "abc");
I'm not yet convinced, but it remains to be seen if there is some killer
functionality that cannot be had without it.
-Steve
