http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9857
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> 2013-04-02 17:27:02 PDT --- > Do you want to explain why? > (Constructors are functions, so why introduce an asymmetry.) In great part because they're _not_ normal functions. They're constructors. They're also not free functions, and the whole idea with UFCS was that it would work with free functions so that you could act like the function was a member of the type of its first argument. It allowed you to essentially add member functions to a type, and therefore be able to not care whether a function was implemented on a type or as a free function, thereby making code more generic. This is trying to take UFCS beyond free functions, and it makes no sense for a constructor to be treated as a member function of another type, because it never could have been implemented as a member function of that type in the first place. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
