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


-- 
使用 Opera 革命性的电子邮件客户程序: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:58:32 -0400, davidl <davidl@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

在 Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:21:05 +0800，Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com> 写道:

> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:58:32 -0400, davidl <davidl@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 think the prototype might best be refined that time.


-- 
使用 Opera 革命性的电子邮件客户程序: http://www.opera.com/mail/

davidl wrote:
> ÔÚ Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:21:05 +0800£¬Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com> дµÀ:
> 
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:58:32 -0400, davidl <davidl@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.