Safer casts

[Yigal Chripun]

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 > I mostly agree with you. The problem with defining these things is
> strings is that... they are strings! They are not bind to symbols in the
> language. So in that sense you can't expect any help from an IDE: no
> autocompletion, no refactor, no go to definition, no nothing.
> 
> If you take a look at two top languages of the moment (C# and Java) you
> can see the designers take careful steps to make the language good,
> eficcient, and IDE-enabled (making an IDE for those languages is
> relatively easy).
> 
> Even for extension methods C# makes a lot of restrictions: they must be
> defined in a static class, and the first parameter must have a "this".
> In that way, an IDE must only search in static classes, and in those,
> just the methods that have a "this". In D, if there are no restrictions,
> you could potentially need to make a big search in order to see where an
> extension method can or cannot be proposed.

Good Points! I thought about the IDE issue, but I wasn't sure how the
IDE handles this.