UFCS for D

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.wbyg2ywyeav7ka at localhost.localdomain...
>
> For builtin types (such as arrays or numbers), there wouldn't be a module 
> that the type was defined.  However, object.di is imported by everything, 
> so extensions could be put in there.
>

Wait, What? Weren't you strongly *opposed* to this last week when I 
suggested it for empty()?

I'm not trying to be an ass about it. Just not sure if you changed your 
mind, or I'm missing something, or what.

> One  misleading suggestion from the article however, it's not very easy to 
> create non-friend non-member functions using UFCS, considering that every 
> function in a given module is a friend.  In order to do this, you would 
> need a helper module for each module that wants to define such non-friend 
> functions.  Given the above proof, the helper module would also have to be 
> imported by the main module.
>

Yea, that occurred to me, too. <wishful musing>I've been starting to think 
more and more that the "everything in a module is a friend" was a mistake, 
and that we should have instead just had a "module" access specifier like we 
have "package".</wishful musing>