I see no issue with the request, I've never used a non-static
opcall, seems odd, but for a uniform syntax I'd say go for it.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Regarding UFCS, currently this doesn't work, I don't know if
this should be considered a bug or not (I think the answer is
positive):
struct Node {}
void foo(Node* p) {}
void main() {
auto p = new Node();
foo(p); // OK
p.foo; // Error: no property 'foo' for type 'Node'
}
Bye,
bearophile
D has specified that . (dot) will dereference, I don't see this
as a bug. What do you think should happen if you do have a
foo(Node p) {}? Now on to Some points from the BZ entry.
Jonathan, UFCS was never planned for arrays, the only reason the
bug wasn't fixed was because it was nice and figured it should be
expanded upon. Planning for it to only work with arrays would
just be weird.
Andrej, The statement related to reversing foo(a) means that you
don't get a.foo(), since bearophile is requesting this it should
try foo(a). Also about how long we have had UFCS:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=662
This jira you reference is commented with: "UFCS for all basic
types and enums is implemented in dmd 2.059." which was released
in April last year. The oldest bug you mention is for the array
"version."
