On Tuesday, 27 August 2013 at 07:45:14 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
I think that D's non-hijack rules are pretty sweet, but I also
think that D should apply Koenig's rules: If a template is
dependent on a parameter from a particular module (say "a"),
then
the functions inside that module should also be taken into
account when building the template instance. It would be
*partial* hijack in the sense that you can only hijack the
templates that operate on *your* types anyways, but in no case
change the behavior of that of others'.
That still makes hijacking a real issue though. It limits the
hijacking to template functions, but it's still there.
What if ADL was only used with UFCS on an instance of a template
type?
e.g.
void foo(T)(T t)
{
import std.stdio;
writeln(t); // always std.stdio
t.writeln(); // used ADL, maybe std.stdio, but can be
specialised by T
"foo".writeln(); // always std.stdio
}
This kind of makes sense, because T could implement writeln() as
a member function anyway, so by using UFCS you are voluntarily
opening yourself up to hijacking.
