Re: suggested properties of operator results

[Daniel S. Wilkerson]

Dave Storrs wrote:

>         2) This feature would be very prone to abuse (makes it easier to
> obfuscate code),

Whoa!  Never thought I'd hear that!  And computed function calls/adding things
to the namespace at runtime/rearranging the inheritance tree at runtime aren't
"very prone to abuse" !?  :-)

> but that isn't a reason to disqualify something either.

Clearly hasn't been so far anyway.  Why stop now?  :-)

Chris's proposed feature seems much less prone to abuse than many others.
I myself have wanted this feature, but never thought to ask for it.  Thanks
Chris.  Not clear on how it should be actually implemented though.

Daniel