On 10/14/12 08:13, Maxim Fomin wrote: > The only mentioned reason is to allow writing operator overloading methods > outside type scope - just because somebody (currently two people) consider it > logical to broaden UFCS usage.
It's more than two people... Also, it's not about "broadening UFCS usage", it's about making UFCS work properly. > This doesn't solve ay practical issue. Obviously, it does. Otherwise this issue wouldn't come up repeatedly. artur
