http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7177
Steven Schveighoffer <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #17 from Steven Schveighoffer <[email protected]> 2013-03-21 08:24:32 PDT --- (In reply to comment #16) > The idea in comment #11 is interesting, but one problem point is that current > compiler does not see UFCS fallback for operator overloading. That is a deficiency that is easily worked around: struct Concatable { private string str; this(string str) {this.str = str;} string opBinary(string op)(string other) if (op == "+") {return str ~ other;} } Concatable c(string s) { return Concatable(s);} auto s = "hello".c + "world"; > If we accept it, should we also accept this? > > string opBinary(string op)(string s1, string s2) if (op == "+") { > return s1 ~ s2; > } Should we accept that this is now possible? Sure, I don't see why not, it is quite possible without additions to the language to make that a reality with a tiny insignificant annoyance. Should we accept string + string as a feature of D/phobos? No. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
