On 2009-04-18 17:48:33 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 11:19:38 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
I'm confused. Isn't it clear that at the moment we "have" the ability
to pass a function name as a runtime string?
Indeed, you can pass the template argument as a runtime argument to
another function. No misunderstanding here.
What we're lacking is the ability to implement that using reflection,
but that's an entirely separated discussion!
Runtime reflection lacking indeed, but wether runtime reflection is an
entirely separated discussion depends on if what we're doing will get
in the way of implementing it.
And no, you're not supposed to forward from invoke(string,
Variant[]...) to opDotExp - it's precisely the other way around!
Wrong. Whether it's one way or another entirely depends on what your goals are.
Wrong. It's impossible to pass a dynamic string as a static string, so
the street is one way.
Indeed it's impossible using a template which requires a static string.
And that's exactly the problem: some times you're supposed to make it
work both ways, as I've explained in the rest of my post you've cut
down. Did you read it?
I won't repeat everything, but here's the important part: not having it
go both ways *is* an important drawback. And it doesn't go both ways
only if opDotExp is a template.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
