Fully dynamic d by opDotExp overloading

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:27:57 -0400, davidl <davidl at nospam.org> wrote:

> 在 Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:20:53 +0800，davidl <davidl at nospam.org> 写道:
>
>> 在 Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:24:04 +0800，Steven Schveighoffer  
>> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> 写道:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:44:09 -0400, Leandro Lucarella  
>>> <llucax at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't fully understand the example though. In writefln((v.qq =  
>>>> 5).i),
>>>> how is that B.i is assigned to 5 if the opDotExp("qq", 5) don't  
>>>> propagate
>>>> the 5 to the new B()?
>>>
>>> I think it translates to
>>>
>>> opDotExp("qq") = 5
>>>
>>> Without knowing the signature of qq, how is the compiler supposed to  
>>> infer that it is a property?  In fact, I think this might be a  
>>> limitation of this syntax, you can't define dynamic properties.
>>>
>>> I for one, can't really see a huge benefit, but then again, I don't  
>>> normally work with dynamic-type langauges.  It looks to me like a huge  
>>> hole that the compiler will ignore bugs that would have been caught if  
>>> the methods were strongly typed:
>>>
>>
>> Actually this can help ddl project to work more nicely. Consider you  
>> can call plugin code directly without static bindings. And I believe  
>> delphi COM variant use some similar trick. It allows you call COM  
>> object without static bindings. Sometimes it's troublesome to get the  
>> static bindings, and you only need one piece of little function(you  
>> won't need the whole interface).
>>
>>
>
> DDBI can also benefit from it.
>
> Consider the use case:
> myRow.Col1 = "abc";

Yes, this case does make sense, but I would still probably rather write a  
statically-typed wrapper.

Plus it's not terribly hard to write:

myRow.set("Col1", "abc");

I'm not yet convinced, but it remains to be seen if there is some killer  
functionality that cannot be had without it.

-Steve