UCFS does not work for nested functions?

[Bastiaan Veelo]

On Monday, 18 June 2018 at 17:58:11 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 6/18/18 1:25 PM, bauss wrote:
>> On Monday, 18 June 2018 at 17:16:29 UTC, aliak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 18 June 2018 at 14:19:30 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/18 7:16 AM, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 18 May 2014 at 08:15:08 UTC, Steffen Wenz wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just noticed that using UFCS does not work for nested 
>>>>>> functions, and was wondering whether that's intended, and 
>>>>>> what the rationale behind it is:
>>>>>
>>>>> I just had the same question.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can imagine that the context pointer of nested functions 
>>>>> complicates things, but making `bar` `static` does not 
>>>>> help. Has anything changed in recent years regarding the 
>>>>> difficulty of implementing UFCS for nested functions? Would 
>>>>> it be easier to only support static nested functions?
>>>>>
>>>>> ```
>>>>> void main() {
>>>>>      static void bar(int x) {}
>>>>>
>>>>>      int x;
>>>>>      x.bar(); // Error: no property 'bar' for type 'int'
>>>>> }
>>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> It's never been supported, and likely will not be. I think 
>>>> the idea is that you can override expected behavior inside 
>>>> by accidentally defining some function locally with the same 
>>>> name.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wondering how this is different than with non-nested 
>>> functions? If a global function has the same name as a member 
>>> function then the member function takes precedence. So 
>>> wouldn't the same thing just apply here if it were supported?
>>>
>> 
>> I second this.
>
> What then can happen is that your local calls can get hijacked 
> from outside the module, if someone happens to define something 
> later that you happened to import. D tries to avoid such 
> possibilities.
>
> There's not much precedent for local symbols being overridden 
> by module-level symbols.
>
> -Steve

I don't understand. What local symbol would be overwritten by 
which module-level symbol?

Whatever the concerns, what is the difference regarding these 
concerns between this:
```
// Valid today
void bar(int) {}
void main() {
     int x;
     b.bar;
}
```
and this:
```
\\ Invalid today
void main() {
     static void bar(int) {}
     int x;
     x.bar;
}
```