Fully dynamic d by opDotExp overloading

[Yigal Chripun]

On 17/04/2009 22:54, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Yigal Chripun"<yigal100 at gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:gsam1p$1ut7$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> On 17/04/2009 21:58, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>> btw, I'm not trying to convince you that dynamic typing is necessary
>> always a better solution. What I'm saying is that I agree with Andrei - we
>> need to be open minded and have as many useful tools as possible in our
>> programmer toolbox. The important thing is to choose the right tool for
>> the job.
>>
>
> Typically, yes, having "as many useful tools as possible in our programmer
> toolbox" is great. But with opDotExp, that's not the whole story. What
> opDotExp is, is a tool of only occasional use that provides only a small
> benefit, *and* ends up destroying a much more important tool: compile-time
> checking on a class's members.
>
> Yea, sure I want more tools in my programmer tool box. But I don't want a
> minor one that's going to mess up one of my major ones just by being in
> there.
>
>
I was talking generally about dynamic vs. static typing and didn't 
address the specific implementation of opDotExp.
It's just that I wanted to reply to the posts that argued against 
dynamic typing altogether.