two semantic change proposals

[Don]

davidl wrote:
> ÔÚ Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:21:05 +0800£¬Steven Schveighoffer 
> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> дµÀ:
> 
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:58:32 -0400, davidl <davidl at nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the following allow the runtime reflection wrapper. Though 
>>> it changes the old semantics, the old one can be implemented on top 
>>> of the new semantics
>>>
>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2868
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's cool.
>>
>> However, you have misunderstood how the opDot function name should be 
>> passed via templates.
>>
>> The opDot signature should not take a type as the first argument, but 
>> a string.  Otherwise, you have no compile-time abilities with the 
>> function name:
>>
>> opDot(string methodname, T...)(T args)
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> opDot(U:immutable(char)[], T...)(U methodname, T args)
>>
>> -Steve
> 
> It's said there will be soon "static string" param.

I first proposed that about 3 years ago. I seriously don't believe it's 
going to happen any time soon. In fact, IIRC, Walter said that he'd 
found a problem with it. Maybe in D3.

> I think the prototype might best be refined that time.

We need something that works in D2.