"Yigal Chripun" <yigal...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gsam1p$1ut...@digitalmars.com... > On 17/04/2009 21:58, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > > btw, I'm not trying to convince you that dynamic typing is necessary > always a better solution. What I'm saying is that I agree with Andrei - we > need to be open minded and have as many useful tools as possible in our > programmer toolbox. The important thing is to choose the right tool for > the job. >
Typically, yes, having "as many useful tools as possible in our programmer toolbox" is great. But with opDotExp, that's not the whole story. What opDotExp is, is a tool of only occasional use that provides only a small benefit, *and* ends up destroying a much more important tool: compile-time checking on a class's members. Yea, sure I want more tools in my programmer tool box. But I don't want a minor one that's going to mess up one of my major ones just by being in there.
