Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructiona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1171.1239998473.22690.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 03:54:47PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
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.
Wouldn't the compile time checking remain the same on any class except
the Variant (or whatever) which implements the new operator?
If it is constrained to one type, the destruction seems like it would be
acceptable. You can't trust much on a Variant at compile time anyway.
The problem is there would be no way to tell at a glance whether a given
class uses opDotExp or not. You'd have to go look it up for every class. So,
ok, we could solve that by requiring a different syntax for dynamic
invokation. But we already have that: just pass a string to a dispatch
function.
Then why overloadable operators? Just write a function call and call it
a day. Also, while we're at it, let's prefix all function calls with the
word "call" so it's clear that a call is going on. (Some language did
that after all.)
The fact of the matter is you're in this discussion only to reaffirm a
preconceived opinion. Instead of reiterating your arguments, it might be
of great use to listen to those made by others.
Andrei
