Static operator overloads are possible why?

[Sean Kelly]

Giles Bathgate wrote:
> 
> So how is that in anyway usefull? we have no reference to t, within our operator overload call. 
> (In the first example the reference to t could have been referenced by this)
> 
> So my question; 'should static operator overloads even be allowed?'
> and if they were to be allowed should they not have two arguments?

Personally, I find the existing static operator overloads to be a useful 
tool for various (rarely used, I admit) syntactic tricks.  Aside from 
static opCall being the only means of providing a struct ctor at the 
moment, such things also allow certain types of code to be refactored in 
a fairly efficient manner.  Consider expression templates, for example. 
  Being able to operate directly on types can help to reduce the need 
for placeholder structs in some cases.


Sean