On 04/09/2013 04:10 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
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.
If it does not then it has to be specified that the first a.opBinary is
a different construct from the second a.opBinary.
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
I didn't claim it was intentional. In fact, I suspect it is an
implementation bug since nothing except the implementation hints that it
should not work.
and it would be harder to implement the feature than to keep
things as they stand (according to discussions on bugzilla).
I wouldn't know about the DMD code base.
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).
I am abstracting their essence. If you think there was any argument that
does not fit the above description, feel free to bring it up.
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).
I am flattered you went through the hassle of searching the forums in
order to build an irrelevant ad hominem argument.
Note however, that the thread quoted contains justification for every
opinion I have posted.
On a general note, NG conversations are not linear and there may be race
conditions.
