On 28 September 2017 at 11:58, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/27/2017 4:21 PM, Manu wrote: > >> D does not have ADL, >> > > Thank gawd! :-) > > which will almost certainly lead to _very_ nasty surprises in behaviour. >> > > ADL was always a hack to get around the wretched overloading symbol lookup > behavior in C++. I see it has somehow morphed into a feature :-( but I see > no advantage to it over D's approach (the reverse operand lookup scheme). > Whether you like it or not, the lack of ADL will make the idea of operator overloading a disaster. Don't get me wrong, I'm not married to ADL, I'm completely ambivalent on its design. As I see, it just makes a fairly important set of problems work in a predictable and useful manner, and I haven't encountered issues with it before. The problem is, D offers no solution to the important issues that ADL addresses, and I think that's a much worse situation than the existence of ADL.
