"Jonathan M Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > Which is one of the reasons that I really don't like the idea. Sometimes > it's > nice with strings, but it creates inconsistencies, and stuff like 5.max(7) > just > seems insane. UFCS will give people more freedom and may help templates in > some cases, but I think that it's a major step back for readibility in > general. >
This is why C# requires that you declare a function to be UFCS in order to actualy use it with UFCS syntax (although they don't call it UFCS). I used to be pretty strongly in favor of that, but I've since gotten used to D's lax-ness about it.
