How to call opCall as template?

[Namespace]

On Friday, 31 January 2014 at 11:42:54 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
> On Friday, 31 January 2014 at 10:31:52 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>>> So, if your notation was implemented, it would no longer be 
>>> easy
>>> to know. The compiler would have to be context sensitive, 
>>> which
>>> is more complex and not perfect. I doubt Walter would go for 
>>> that
>>> so you'll never be able to use an explicit templated opCall...
>>> but implicit are ok.
>>
>> I never wanted a new notation. I only want that the bug gets 
>> fixed. :)
>
> Wow, that is the point! it's not a bug! You are asking for a new
> notation. In your post you did
>
> 	F f;
> 	int i = f(3,4,5);
> 	float f_ = f!float(6, 7, 8);
>
> f is an object!!! not a template, you are calling opCall on it,
> right? (the last line) BUT THAT SYNTAX IS FOR TEMPLATES ONLY!!!
>
>
> Do you not see that if I add
>
> template f(T)
> {
>     T f(int x, int y, int z) { return 3.14; }
> }
>
> that there is no way the compiler can know what you mean now?
>
>
> (again, assuming your "bug" was fixed)
>
> PAY ATTENTION!!! The following is your code with the added
> template I gave and two lines of yours commented out!
>
> import std.stdio;
>
> struct F {
> 	T opCall(T = int)(int a, int b, int c) {
> 		return cast(T)(a * b * c);
> 	}
> }
>
> void main() {
> 	//F f;
> 	//int i = f(3,4,5);
> 	float f_ = f!float(6, 7, 8);
> }
>
> template f(T)
> {
> 	T f(int x, int y, int z) { return 3.14; }
> }
>
> NOTE TO YOURSELF!! IT COMPILES JUST FINE!!!!
>
> I didn't change a damn thing! I'm not playing tricks or 
> anything.
> the float f_ line is exactly what you gave, YET I MADE IT 
> COMPILE
> WITH OUT YOUR STRUCT!!!
>
> THIS MEANS IT IS AMBIGUOUS! Your struct or my template would 
> make
> it work(again, assume you could actually do what you want). This
> means it is impossible for the compiler to know which one you
> meant if we uncommented the lines. The only way it would work is
> if one couldn't have variables and templates use the same name 
> at
> the same time in the same scope.... but this already is possible
> and is not ambiguous.
>
> So to fix your "bug" could break the compiler in certain
> circumstances. will it do it in all circumstances, no. But I
> doubt Walter will go for it. Not only does it look like a
> template call(it is in the above example), it might be hard to
> parse and is ambiguous in some cases.

Are you always so aggressive? :)