Re: dynamic classes and duck typing

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:20:06 -0500, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:02:27 +0300, Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You are missing the point of opDispatch. It is not runtime defined, because the compiler statically decides to call opDispatch. The dynamic part of opDispatch comes if you want to do something based on runtime values within the opDispatch function. e.g. the compiler doesn't decide at *runtime* whether to call opDispatch or some normal function named quack, it's decided at compile time. opDispatch could be completely compile-time defined since it is a template. But the 'dynamicness' of it is basically no more dynamic than a normal function which does something based on runtime values.

Compare that to a dynamic language with which you can add methods to any object instance to make it different than another object, or make it conform to some interface.

Well, I believe it's possible to implement the same with opDispatch (not just to any object, but to those that support it):

void foo() {}

Dynamic d = ..;
if (!d.foo) {
     d.foo = &foo;
}

d.foo();

You could do something like this (I don't think your exact syntax would work), but you could also do something like this without opDispatch. But the name 'foo' is still statically decided. Note that opDispatch doesn't implement this ability for you, you still have to implement the dynamic calls behind it. The special nature of opDispatch is how you can define how to map any symbol to any implementation without having to explicitly use strings. In fact, opDispatch is slightly less powerful than such a method if the method uses a runtime string for dispatch.

For example, in php, I can do this:

foo($var)
{
   $obj->$var();
}

The equivalent in D would be:

foo(string var)
{
   obj.opDispatch!(var)();
}

This I would consider to be true runtime-decided dispatch.

-Steve

obj.dynDispatch(var);


Andrei