Steve Yegge's rant on The Next Big Language

[BCS]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>
>>
>> If I'm reading it right this does that, and nicely:
> 
> 
> Uh... no.  Sort of does it, yes.  Nicely? no.

Ok, maybe I overstated my case: It does it without making me want to puke.

> 
> And should at least allow bar to be implemented like:
> 
> SetT!(int,int) bar(int i, int j)
> {
>    return SetT(i,j);
> }
> 

I tried that by using static opCall but you can't overload both static 
and non static opCall. I assume that if you could than a little implicit 
instancing would get rid of the rest. If you use a class it might look 
better, sort of. But then you get an alloc.