On Friday, 4 March 2016 at 02:09:25 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Friday, 4 March 2016 at 01:56:34 UTC, user001 wrote:
Was just wondering why UFCS only works in one direction, that
is why functions can be used as if it were part of a
struct/class but not the other way around.
int dot;
float value = dot(a, b); // would be same as a.dot(b)
// doesn't try to use local "int dot"
Immediately looking at only that part of the code, i have to
ask 'how the hell are you calling the int???'. Of course i can
tell from your source dot is also a function in the vector.
Considering dot could now shadow the variables or function
names, it would quickly QUICKLY become annoying. A hierarchy of
how the call is used plus the documentation of what it's
obviously doing is a much better approach. Not to mention we've
been using . and -> and * so long for accessing/de-referencing
members that are attached so long that changing it is probably
not an option.
You can say the same thing about how it is currently implemented.
int[] arr = [ 0, 1, 2, 3 ];
static map(alias F)(int[])
{
}
writeln(arr.map!(a => a * 2)); // what does this mean array
doesnt have a map function, does it use the local map function or
the global one?
MAYBE if you were starting a language from scratch, but in this
case i would firmly say no, this is ugly and confusing.
Well it could possibly be happening with C++17 so it's not that
big of stretch to add it to an existing language, especially if
that language already has it half implemented.
