On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:56 PM Dave Abrahams <dabrah...@apple.com> wrote:
> > on Mon May 02 2016, Tony Allevato <allevato-AT-google.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:20 PM Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > > How does one distinguish between calls to a static prefix operator > and a > > static postfix operator with the same name? > > > > Ah, that's a tricky one that I don't have an immediate answer to, so I'm > > definitely open to creative thoughts here. > > One possibility: just use “qualified operator” notation. > > lhs T.+= rhs > > T.++x > x T.++ > Even though this seemed a little odd when you first suggested it in the other thread, it's growing on me now that we have to deal with this ambiguity. Fortunately the only situation I foresee where a person would explicitly use this notation would be in the trampoline operator, so even if it looks a little odd, at least it's isolated. > > The first stab I would take at is, what if we included the token > "prefix" or > > "suffix" before the operator name in the expression, like this? > > > > return T.prefix ++(&value) > > return T.postfix ++(&value) > > > > But that could start to look like an invocation of "++" on a static > property > > "T.prefix". I haven't dug into the parser to determine if that would > even be > > feasible or not. > > These are not unreasonable either: > > return prefix T.++(&value) > return postfix T.++(&value) > I could get behind this one as well.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
