On Saturday, 13 October 2012 at 16:02:25 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
From my point of view operator overloading methods are special functions and not treating them as candidates for UFCS does make more sense.
I can think of only one thing that makes custom operator methods "special" or different from regular methods. It's the fact that you don't *have* to call them through the normal method invocation syntax: var.opSomething(...), but rather, the language provides this nice layer of syntactic sugar through which you *can* call those methods, if you so choose to.
What you're saying is, that calling those operator methods through this layer of syntactic sugar, e.g. var + 3, is somehow fundamentally different from directly calling the method, to which this layer of syntactic sugar would forward the expression to call anyway, i.e. var.opBinary!"+"(3)
