Fully dynamic d by opDotExp overloading

[Christopher Wright]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Christopher Wright" <dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:gsb05g$2ini$3 at digitalmars.com...
>> Assuming that you are testing the logic of your application, you will 
>> trivially check things like accessing "legnth" rather than "length" -- 
>> under the assumption that these two methods would do different things. You 
>> would spend approximately no additional testing effort on opDotExp.
>>
>> This doesn't hold if you are not writing tests.
> 
> I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. With static languages, 
> I have never written, nor would I ever need to write, a test that checks for 
> the behavior when accessing an object's "legnth" instead of "length". 

And let's say your object suddenly gets a "legnth" field because it's 
from a library and you start using a newer version of the library. 
Either that field does the same thing -- in which case it's not a bug to 
use the wrong one -- or it does something different, in which case your 
code has a logic error caused by a typo.

Testing the logic of your code will catch the latter error and not the 
former. But the former isn't an error, if it has the same result.