Inconsistency increasing

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"DavidL" <Davidl at 126.com> wrote in message 
news:op.txn9lnubbag506 at 39eee18d1a25413...
> opAdd_r VS opAdd
> opImpicitCastTo VS opImplicitCastFrom
>
> consider:
> objectA + objectB
>
> objectB get opAdd_r
> objectA get opAdd
>
> what would happen?

This is already defined.  See 
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/operatoroverloading.html, Binary Operator 
Overloading, example 5.  This is ambiguous.

> structB = structA
> structA get opImplicitCastTo and structB get opImplicitCastFrom, what 
> would happen?
> both get called? or the one *well* defined by compiler( this kind of 
> specification could cause
> many issues imo)

This would probably result in a similar ambiguosity.

> we don't need an OOP style operator overloading
> we need a global operator overloading

If it's well-defined (which it is), OOP-style operator overloading works 
just fine.  However, notice that D2 is generalizing method calls, so that 
"x.f()" and "f(x)" can be semantically equivalent.  This might bring global 
operator overloading as a side-effect.