Kill implicit joining of adjacent strings

[Bruno Medeiros]

On 20/11/2010 05:31, Walter Bright wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> On 12/11/2010 09:53, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Well put me on board then. Walter, please don't forget to tweak the
>>> associativity rules: var ~ " literal " ~ " literal " concatenates
>>> literals first.
>>
>> You mean make ~ right-associative? I think this'll break more code
>> than it fixes.
>>
>> But implementing a compiler optimisation so that var ~ ctc ~ ctc is
>> processed as var ~ (ctc ~ ctc), _in those cases where they're
>> equivalent_, would be sensible.
>
> Andrei's right. This is not about making it right-associative. It is
> about defining in the language that:
>
> ((a ~ b) ~ c)
>
> is guaranteed to produce the same result as:
>
> (a ~ (b ~ c))
>
> Unfortunately, the language cannot make such a guarantee in the face of
> operator overloading. But it can do it for cases where operator
> overloading is not in play.

So if you have the code:
  (a ~ b ~ c)
and b and c are strings, but a is not a string (nor has a toString 
method, nor implicit convertion), but has a overload of the append 
operator, then b and c will not be joined in compile-time, according to 
that?

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer