On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Ellery Newcomer<ellery-newco...@utulsa.edu> wrote: > > Well, you've just sapped my resolve to continue. You wouldn't happen to > have a list of these things somewhere, would you?
What I've listed in my post is most of it. :) > Come to think of it, am I missing anything about stringof? It looks to > me like contradictory requirements; on one hand spec mandates no > semantic analysis, on the other you need to determine if stringof is a > field reachable by dot. And the compiler goes with the latter. That sounds like a bug to me. The compiler really should disallow redefining built-in properties, and it does for some (try defining a 'sizeof' member), but not others. (Of course I find the whole property syntax used for type introspection a bit silly, a half-thought-out feature that's hard to parse, not easily extensible, and which doesn't fit syntactically with the rest of the metaprogramming facilities.)
