On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 23:57:24 UTC, Meta wrote:
It's a good idea, but yet another function annotation is pretty much a no-go. How bad an idea is it to *always* defer to a member function if the object/struct in question has such a function defined? I thought that was the case already... I suppose it will cause untold amounts of code breakage. Very unfortunate.
UFCS only apply to the method call style, not the the function call style, so it's not a matter of priority here - `foo(myObject)` will not call the `foo.myObject()` method even if there is no `foo` function(in that case it'll just fail).
Having the function call style always defer to a member function is a really bad idea - and not just because of code breakage. It'll make it impossible to call a function on an object that has a method of the same name unless you use an alias or a function variable to copy the function - but then you have to make sure the alias\variable name is also not taken!
This will be a disaster for anyone who wants to build or use a D library that uses templates. Well, how common can that case be?
