Fully dynamic d by opDotExp overloading

[Adam Burton]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Adam Burton wrote:
>> Jason House wrote:
>> 
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>> Please do not accuse me of such a thing simply because I haven't
>>>>> changed my opinion. You've held your ground as well, so I could just
>>>>> as easily accuse you of being closed-minded and merely reaffirming a
>>>>> your preconceived opinion. I have indeed listened to the arguments and
>>>>> responded to them.
>>>> Given my track record, I think it should come at no surprise that I'm
>>>> not a fan of dynamic typing.
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>> I'm no fan of it either. I will be pissed if one day I'm using a D
>>> library and a function name typo becomes a runtime error. There is no
>>> program too short for me to introduce typos and bugs.
>>>
>>> Even still, this dynamic stuff does not bother me much because it only
>>> gets turned on if the class designer wanted it. I assume that it'd be a
>>> corner of the language I could avoid. The use seems reasonable besides
>>> sone bicycle shed coloring, so I plan to sit quietly in the corner and
>>> await an outcome.
>>>
>>> My only 2 cents is to use something other than dot for dynamic function
>>> invocation. Given how much I plan to use it, it's probably better for me
>>> to abstain.
>> I agree.
>> 
>> Bare with me on this as I am making some assumptions, I don't follow D2
>> development very closely ... or D as much as I would like these days :-(.
>> 
>> What about using something like '->' for dynamic calls instead of '.'?
> 
> That's absolutely useless. If I have to write anything different from
> "." I might as well write "bloodyMaryBloodyMaryBloodyMary".
> 
> Andrei
You could even write 'noodles' but that doesn't really give me a reason as 
to why it's absolutely useless. Please clarify, I thought it seemed like a 
reasonable idea, if it isn't I would like to know why.