Are templated string embedded expressions "method parameters" or "lambdas"?

[Brian Goetz]

> I suggest that, until we roll out more of the machinery
> we intend to roll out, such as type classes, that we
> restrict the operand x (the receiver LHS of the S.T.)
> to be a statically constant expression.

I think this is taking it way too far.

*If* the receiver is a statically constant expression, *then* it should 
be possible to get better type checking / translation.  But isn't 
constraining the receiver to be a static constant just more of the same 
sort of nannyism that you've been objecting to?