"Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.usjnzajzeav...@steves.networkengines.com... > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:32:07 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a...@a.a> wrote: > > My main concern that I've read so far is how if a class has a dynamic > method dispatcher that's callable like a method, you can't rely on the > compiler to help you typecheck (or spellcheck) the *non-dynamic* methods, > because it will just default to sending incorrectly typed data or > misspelled methods to the dynamic dispatcher.
That is a *very* good point, that hadn't even occured to me. > I think dynamic methods have a very limited use, and probably aren't > worth polluting the D language for a few rare cases. > Agreed. > When you know the API ahead of time, you're almost always better off to > have statically typed objects. When you don't know it ahead of time, > well, I prefer the uglyness of seeing the quoted strings to having the > compiler just start trusting everything I do ;) > Agreed.
