Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Nick Sabalausky, el 17 de abril a las 16:38 me escribiste:
"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.
This is like foreach. In C a for loop is a for loop, you are never calling
a bizarre member function when looping. When you see code using foreach,
you have to go look the variable definition to see if it's a real array to
see what the looping is doing.
Do we need foreach? No, it's just syntax sugar. But I think it makes life
much more easier...
There is a lot of black magic already doing on that makes much harder to
see what's really going on with a piece of code (operator overloading?).
If you don't like that, you should probably stick to C =)
It's more than just convenience; it's integration. Uniform form allows
generic algorithms to operate on a variety of types. Somehow this
argument keeps on being ignored in the discussion.
Andrei
