On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:54:52 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Andrei wrote:
We are discussing a language extension. That language extension will
allow a type to choose flexibility in defining methods dynamically,
while being otherwise integrated syntactically with the current values.
This has advantages, but also alters the expectations.
As long as it identifies what can be dynamic and what cannot. I can't
imagine Walter will go for this with his strict view of hijacking.
Let me add that if there was a way for syntax to easily allow for
unintentional calls to be translated to compile-time errors, I think this
would be a workable solution.
For example, I don't have any problem with your Pascalize example, because
you have not removed any static typing from the code (i.e. no unexpected
noops or exceptions are built in). If there were some way to enforce
this, then I think it would be a usable idea. For instance, if you only
allow CTFE to specify a function that is called when certain strings are
passed in, I don't have a problem with that, because you are simply
dispatching the data to strongly typed functions at compile time, which
provide compile-time errors when you mess up.
-Steve
