std.range: Order of arguments unluckily chosen?

[Mehrdad]

On 6/4/2011 4:25 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
> Perhaps like this:
>
>     auto take(R)(uint count, R this) { ... }
>
> Note that the second parameters's name is "this", which would mean 
> that the second argument is the one that disappear using the member 
> syntax.
>
> It can then be called this way:
>
>     take(3, range);
>
> or this way:
>
>     range.take(3);
>
> Having to specify explicitly whether a function is meant for 
> member-syntax this way would also fix a couple of issues regarding 
> UFCS: UFCS properties would be able to work correctly, and name 
> clashes would happen less often when using the member syntax.

+1 for the idea, it's pretty similar to C#'s extension method syntax, 
and it's pretty intuitive IMHO.