--- Comment #7 from Maxim Fomin <> 2012-10-07 01:08:41 PDT 
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > 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.
> This is not to do with UFCS. There are already many built in properties like
> x.sizeof, x.init:
> typeof fits nicely as a built in property, and helps cut down on nested
> brackets.

Typeof is not a property either. And it differs from all those properties
which, given a type or expression, provide fundamental information about their
types like size, default value, name, alignment. Typeof works in opposite
direction - given some expression it gives its type. 

BTW, identifier is a primary expression (, so,
making idenfier.typeof possible and expression.typeof not (as mentioned above),
raises some questions. 

However, if typeof is made a property too, it would be logical and consistent.

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

Reply via email to