"Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op.usjevzhseav...@steves.networkengines.com...
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:27:57 -0400, davidl <dav...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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 think some sort of paramaterized property would be far better (I *think*
we can do these, right?):
myRow.col("Col1") = "abc";
myRow.col["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.
>
Same here. So far, it just doesn't seem worth the loss of knowing at a
glance what is and what might not be verified at compile-time. If I wanted
to be throwing compile-time guarantees out the window, I'd go use PHP.
