On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:55:43 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"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.
s/on a class's members/on the members of the class that actively chose
that/
Sure, how do you know that the class actively chose it, or did not
actively choose it, or will *never* actively choose it simply by looking
at the statement?
The problem with me is that it doesn't *look* different. If there was
some way to denote "call dynamic method" instead of "call static method"
or some way to denote "has dynamic methods", then I'd have no problem with
it. Even if you were forced to derive from a special base type in order
to use dynamic methods, I wouldn't mind that.
-Steve
