Short list with things to finish for D2

[Gzp]

bearophile wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu:
> 
>> * Encode operators by compile-time strings. For example, instead of the 
>> plethora of opAdd, opMul, ..., we'd have this:
>>
>> T opBinary(string op)(T rhs) { ... }
>>
>> The string is "+", "*", etc.
> 
> Can you show an example of defining an operator, like a minus, with that?
> 
> In my set data structure I'd like to define "<=" among two sets as "is subset". Can that design allow me to overload just <= and >= ? (opCmp is not enough here).
> 
> Bye,
> bearophile

And what about the unary operators. Sorry I was not following the 
opBinary thread from the beginning, so it might have been discussed 
before. If opBinary has a syntax like this, unary operators require 
something like this at least just for completeness.
(And maybe trinary operators ?: ) :)
Can they still be overloaded ? Will they have a similar syntax ? If so
what about the e++ and ++e operators? How they are distinct ? Or is the 
latter eliminated from the language ?
Though, I like the idea, just a quick look at a code and you can see all 
the operators in a place.

Bye, Gzp