Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 17:48:33 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-04-18 11:19:38 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
I'm confused. Isn't it clear that at the moment we "have" the
ability to pass a function name as a runtime string?
Indeed, you can pass the template argument as a runtime argument to
another function. No misunderstanding here.
What we're lacking is the ability to implement that using
reflection, but that's an entirely separated discussion!
Runtime reflection lacking indeed, but wether runtime reflection is
an entirely separated discussion depends on if what we're doing will
get in the way of implementing it.
And no, you're not supposed to forward from invoke(string,
Variant[]...) to opDotExp - it's precisely the other way around!
Wrong. Whether it's one way or another entirely depends on what your
goals are.
Wrong. It's impossible to pass a dynamic string as a static string, so
the street is one way.
Indeed it's impossible using a template which requires a static string.
And that's exactly the problem: some times you're supposed to make it
work both ways, as I've explained in the rest of my post you've cut
down. Did you read it?
I won't repeat everything, but here's the important part: not having it
go both ways *is* an important drawback. And it doesn't go both ways
only if opDotExp is a template.
I did, but sorry, it doesn't make sense and does nothing but continue
the terrible confusion going in this thread.
You say: well if opDot were a template then a scripting language can't
get to it because what it has is a dynamic string. Yes. That's why opDot
does whatever static string processing and then forwards, if the design
asks for it, to the dynamic function. opDot's participation is solely a
syntax helper within D.
Andrei
