Maxim Fomin <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |

--- Comment #5 from Maxim Fomin <> 2012-10-06 06:41:10 PDT 
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > typeof isn't a property or a function, unlike sizeof. It's like an
> > is-expression, and I think that treating it like a property would be a 
> > mistake.
> I think (x + y).typeof should not be allowed, use the existing syntax instead.
> However, x.typeof is a useful shorthand that helps cut down on nested brackets
> in is expressions and elsewhere. So I would allow both typeof(expression) and
> identifier.typeof to be used, but *not* expression.typeof.
> The type of an instance is a natural property of the instance IMO.

The problem is that UFCS was made to work with functions and typeof is not a
function. Accepting identifier.typeof would result in questions about which
identifiers are valid for this and what else works besides typeof with them.

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to