> Thank you, I'm glad you agree. Of course. Reflection should _never_ expose private stuff.
> Would dynamic interfaces be similar to isRange!T? i.e. a function which tests > a dynamic-object for certain fields/functions. Hmmm..... Yeap. Exactly. Anything else i would say would be a derivative of it. I can't do it currently. Also, as discussed before, i should never see private stuff this way (any any other way). > Would dynamic overload be a subset of prototype-style objects? Huh? Dynamic overloading is basically multi-methods. It chooses the implementation based on run-time type of the parameters. This could be further improved by allowing overloading, based on arbitrary predicates (much like template constraints). > Would dynamic modules simply container for dynamic functions/objects? Basically, yes. Dynamic module would contain typemically typed variables, functions, and types. > Something more? Cant thing of anything else ATM. Will tell you if i do. On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Robert Jacques <sandf...@jhu.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:14:58 -0400, Gor Gyolchanyan > <gor.f.gyolchan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I didn't mean reflection for violating access specifications. In that >> case, of course, it's error-prone. > > Thank you, I'm glad you agree. > >> What i meant was a set of dynamic counterparts of static features of D: >> * Dynamic interfaces >> * Dynamic overloading >> * Dynamic modules >> * ... >> That's what i had in mind. > > Care to explain what would each of those should look like? > > Would dynamic interfaces be similar to isRange!T? i.e. a function which > tests a dynamic-object for certain fields/functions. > > Would dynamic overload be a subset of prototype-style objects? > > Would dynamic modules simply container for dynamic functions/objects? > Something more? >
