Fully dynamic d by opDotExp overloading

[BCS]

Hello Adam,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> (In the above, you seeme to be working with the assumption of the non
>> static opDotExp form. I, BTW, see no use for it as it adds no new
>> functionality to D where as the static opDotExp(char[],T...)(T t)
>> form adds a new ability)
>> 
> When you say static opDotExp I am assuming you are talking about the
> example where someone writes a "struct Wrapper(T)" in just a few lines
> of code to wrap a type and add logging (I been bit busy to read rest
> of the threads so I only been replying to stuff following the trail
> leading up to my post for the most part, till now)? If so then yea
> that does look nice and seems like something I would use. It also
> doesn't contain the holes my proposal is attempting to solve since the
> function name is still evaluated at compile time, so removing 'open'
> from 'ServerProxy' wouldn't magically turn into a runtime error as the
> static assert will kick in.

OK, it seems that we agree on the one point I'm still interested in running 
with. I must have been reading the rest of that from the wrong viewpoint. 
I'll leave it at that.