Minor extension to cast syntax

[Bruce Adams]

Gregor Richards Wrote:

> Bruce Adams wrote:
> > Gregor Richards Wrote:
> > 
> >> Gregor Richards wrote:
> >>>> There is that idea in language design that if it can be done as a 
> >>>> function it should be unless there is a good reason not to.
> >>> In highly dynamic languages where performance isn't a primary objective, 
> >>> yes. Dynamic arrays, anyone?
> >>>
> >> I should also mention, while I'm at it, that this can NOT be done as a 
> >> function.
> >>
> >>   - Gregor Richards
> > 
> > It could if your language was dynamic enough to support types as first class objects so that no meta syntax was required. :)
> > 
> 
> Yeah, but that's a matter of goals ... I love dynamic languages, my pet 
> language is entirely prototype-based, so "types" are really just 
> prototype objects, and are therefore passable like any other object. It 
> makes things like generics really easy and intuitive, and of course 
> casting is just one comparison away :)
> 
> But D is a static language, and has different goals.
> 
>   - Gregor Richards

Agreed but wouldn't it be nice to find a language with the best of both world? By the way, which is your pet language.

Regards,

Bruce.