Fully dynamic d by opDotExp overloading

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:55:43 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> s/on a class's members/on the members of the class that actively chose  
> that/

Sure, how do you know that the class actively chose it, or did not  
actively choose it, or will *never* actively choose it simply by looking  
at the statement?

The problem with me is that it doesn't *look* different.  If there was  
some way to denote "call dynamic method" instead of "call static method"  
or some way to denote "has dynamic methods", then I'd have no problem with  
it.  Even if you were forced to derive from a special base type in order  
to use dynamic methods, I wouldn't mind that.

-Steve