http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7177
--- Comment #41 from Steven Schveighoffer <[email protected]> 2013-03-22 09:23:48 PDT --- (In reply to comment #40) > (In reply to comment #39) > > However, we can probably make opDollar a special case, it's not really an > > operator but a special symbol that $ gets translated into. > > By that logic, opBinary is not really an operator, but a special symbol "+" > gets translated into. Besides, you could do very stupid stuff with opDollar > the > same as with any operator. It's most definitely not an operator, despite the name. It's a property. To say opDollar is an operator is like saying length is an operator. > So allowing opDollar as non-member operator could be used unsafely just the > same as any other operator. You misunderstand, what I meant was because it's not technically an operator, we could give it special permission to allow UFCS and technically be correct saying we don't allow operator overloading with UFCS. I didn't say it would always be safe! > I'm really just questioning why we don't allow UFCS for *all* operators? Seems > like a restriction when you take into account the fact that you have UFCS. > After all, it can already be used to give built-in types new attributes. Why > are operators different from functions? I don't have a problem with it, I was suggesting we could allow it only for opDollar as a compromise for those who feel operators shouldn't be UFCS-able. In fact, we already can add operators via type-wrapping and alias this. I don't see the issue with allowing UFCS as a cleaner solution for that. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
