On 10/30/17 9:59 PM, codephantom wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 at 01:47:39 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I once thought as you do (though not as the syntax you propose). I now
embrace UFCS fully, it's awesome.
-Steve
Yeah. I do like UFCS ... I was convinved after seeing Ali talk about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYEKEIpM2zo
What a great ambassador for D he is!
But being able to differentiate whether a line of code is calling a
method of an object, or a free function... that's the area that concerns
me.
I'm lazy.. I would like such code to be more explicit....and not leave
it to me to work out what's going on.
Except... then you can't use generic code with UFCS.
For example, arrays couldn't be ranges, because you can't just do
arr.front, you'd have to do arr.\front.
-Steve
