"Nick Sabalausky" <a...@a.a> wrote in message news:gsbru0$rb...@digitalmars.com... > "Don" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:gsbovk$nb...@digitalmars.com... >> >> The problem is a lack of notification at compile time. Runtime exceptions >> are the problem, not the solution. >> >> By the way, if the opDot is a template (per Andrei's suggestion), then if >> it is marked as nothrow, you have a guarantee that if it compiles, it's >> valid. >> nothrow opDot(char [])(args...) doesn't have any of the problems which >> Nick et. al have mentioned. > > Ok, now *that* is something I can be happy with. >
In fact, now that I think about it, as long as the member name was required to be a template parameter, I'd be perfectly happy with it (and wouldn't even want nothrow to be required). I think that's slightly different from what Andrei's advocated though. Unless I misread something, Andrei, you want it to be possible for the member name to be *either* a template or non-template param, right?
