On Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 11:00:05 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 10/16/2012 05:57 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
...
At NG discussion it may look nice to define some type and then
add
operator overloading methods
Operator overloading is not magic, so your statement can be
shortened to
... and then add methods
Which is still not correct, because that is not what UFCS does.
It is not correct as long as you cavil at lexis, however the
statement has room for correction.
but as soon as you import some other
modules, authors of which also consider UFCS operators a good
idea,
Who has stated that? It just does not make sense to explicitly
ban
them, as they are not special.
Who stated that they should be "explicitly banned"? I explained
potential problem in previous posts.
everything breaks including namespace conflict
The usual disambiguation procedures apply. (Which are broken in
DMD at
the moment, because module-scope private symbols can cause
conflicts.)
Infix operators are not special. It is just notation.
as well as loosing
ability to manipulate that type within built-in expression as
well.
I did not get that.
Again, the problem is in conflict between different declared
operator overloading functions across different modules.
