Fully dynamic d by opDotExp overloading

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:47:53 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:54:21 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2korden at gmail.com>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:09:28 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer  
>>> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, there are many things that opDotExp can do that opDot or alias  
>>>> this (which is essentially opDot without any code).  Hooking every  
>>>> function call on a type seems to be one of the two killer use cases  
>>>> of this feature (the other being defining a large range of functions  
>>>> from which only a small number need to exist).  But call forwarding  
>>>> seems not to be one of them.  There are better ways to simply forward  
>>>> a call (such as in your variant example).
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty convinced that this is a useful feature, I still have  
>>>> qualms about how it's really easy to define a runtime black hole  
>>>> where the compiler happily compiles empty functions that do nothing  
>>>> instead of complaining about calling a function that does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I don't think the requirement for this feature needs to be for  
>>>> the arguments to be templated, it should be sufficient to have a  
>>>> single string template argument.  This way, you can overload opDotExp  
>>>> functions via argument lists.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That way you loose type safety of arguments.
>>  No
>>  class C
>> {
>>    int y;
>>    void opDotExp(string fname)(int x)
>>    {
>>       y = x;
>>    }
>> }
>>  auto c = new C;
>> c.foo(1); // ok
>> c.foo("hi"); // compile error, no such function.
>>  -Steve
>
> Good point. My take is, just have the compiler rewrite a.b(c, d, e) into  
> a.opDot!("b")(c, d, e) and call it a day. After that, the usual language  
> rules enter in action.

Haven't used D2 for much stuff, but does this work?  I remember reading  
something about partial IFTI, so if you have

opDotExp(string fname, T...) (T args){}

and you call

opDotExp!("b")(c, d, e)

Does it implicitly define T?

-Steve