Fully dynamic d by opDotExp overloading

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:54:52 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Andrei wrote:
>> We are discussing a language extension. That language extension will  
>> allow a type to choose flexibility in defining methods dynamically,  
>> while being otherwise integrated syntactically with the current values.  
>> This has advantages, but also alters the expectations.
>
> As long as it identifies what can be dynamic and what cannot.  I can't  
> imagine Walter will go for this with his strict view of hijacking.

Let me add that if there was a way for syntax to easily allow for  
unintentional calls to be translated to compile-time errors, I think this  
would be a workable solution.

For example, I don't have any problem with your Pascalize example, because  
you have not removed any static typing from the code (i.e. no unexpected  
noops or exceptions are built in).  If there were some way to enforce  
this, then I think it would be a usable idea.  For instance, if you only  
allow CTFE to specify a function that is called when certain strings are  
passed in, I don't have a problem with that, because you are simply  
dispatching the data to strongly typed functions at compile time, which  
provide compile-time errors when you mess up.

-Steve