Fully dynamic d by opDotExp overloading

Christopher Wright dhasenan at gmail.com
Sat Apr 18 05:48:27 PDT 2009


Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 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

Or if the type you are dealing with is irrevocably weakly typed anyway, 
such as most of the use cases we've mentioned (scripting languages, 
database rows, Variant).



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list