Hello Adam,
BCS wrote:
(In the above, you seeme to be working with the assumption of the non
static opDotExp form. I, BTW, see no use for it as it adds no new
functionality to D where as the static opDotExp(char[],T...)(T t)
form adds a new ability)
When you say static opDotExp I am assuming you are talking about the
example where someone writes a "struct Wrapper(T)" in just a few lines
of code to wrap a type and add logging (I been bit busy to read rest
of the threads so I only been replying to stuff following the trail
leading up to my post for the most part, till now)? If so then yea
that does look nice and seems like something I would use. It also
doesn't contain the holes my proposal is attempting to solve since the
function name is still evaluated at compile time, so removing 'open'
from 'ServerProxy' wouldn't magically turn into a runtime error as the
static assert will kick in.
OK, it seems that we agree on the one point I'm still interested in running
with. I must have been reading the rest of that from the wrong viewpoint.
I'll leave it at that.
