On Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 09:03:55 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
This is getting old. We should discuss the general issue, issue
9857 is just another instance of it.
Namely:
If the language defines a rewrite from A to B and from B to C,
is a rewrite from A to C implied?
If a + b is rewritten as a.opBinary according to operator
overloading and a.opBinary as opBinary(a,..) is rewritten
according to UFCS, it does not necessarily mean that this works
together.
I'd say yes, because this is the obvious behaviour. If it is
not there, we have to add a magical "has already been
rewritten" flag, countering intuition. Furthermore, as far as I
am concerned, this is easier to implement. DMD's inconsistent
behaviour has been discussed on d.D.learn multiple times.
From what I know there is no code in dmd that intentionally
disables the feature and it would be harder to implement the
feature than to keep things as they stand (according to
discussions on bugzilla).
Furthermore, the only argument brought up against this so far
is that some language constructs are special and ergo they must
be mutually incompatible. This is a complete non sequitur.
It seems that you ignore arguments (strictly speaking you are
simplifying them).
Jonathan Davis doesn't like this. For more information I
suggest to take
a look at the thread in Bugzilla.
...
There is not more information there, it's just given in a blown
up representation. He does not justify his opinion.
That's not funny more. It is really interesting to hear from you
saying that somebody does not provide bases for opinions because
it is you who are known to post argument without justification
ignoring everything previous (for ex.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Possible_UDA_bug_190800.html).
