is(this : myClass)

[Patrick]

On Friday, 20 October 2017 at 22:15:36 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 10/20/17 5:55 PM, Patrick wrote:
>> Due to the very specific nature of the 'is' operator, why 
>> wouldn't the compiler know to implicitly query the class 
>> types? Why must it be explicitly written, typeof(this)?
>
> The compiler generally doesn't "fix" errors for you, it tells 
> you there is a problem, and then you have to fix it. You have 
> to be clear and unambiguous to the compiler. Otherwise 
> debugging would be hell.
>
> -Steve

Not asking the compiler to fix my errors.

When would
is(this, myClass) not mean: is(typeof(this) : typeof(myClass))?

Why would "is(this, myClass)" be ambiguous? What other 
interpretation would "is(this, myClass)" imply?

Patrick