On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 10:27:59 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
"Abstract
This is the proposed wording for a unified call syntax based on
the idea that f(x,y) can invoke a member function, x.f(y), if
there are no f(x,y). The inverse transformation, from x.f(y) to
f(x,y) is not proposed."
They were considering 6 alternatives and chose the worst...
https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P0251R0.pdf
Am I crazy, or is this paper proposing the exact opposite of what
would be needed to do chaning of ranges or extension methods?
I don't get how it would be useful at all to type f(x, y) and
have the compiler call x.f(y) for me. Why would I ever not want
to just use member invocation syntax?
Bit
