Don wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
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.
There is. Just mark opDot as nothrow.
Not an option. I want to dispatch to methods that might throw exceptions.
