possible "solution" for ufcs

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:isjhv6$309k$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:op.vwn4enw5eav7ka at localhost.localdomain...
>> Someone wrote a very compelling argument for ufcs (uniform function call 
>> syntax) for ranges, and that is, given a slew of range functions, and a 
>> slew of ranges, it is nice to use a fluent programming syntax to specify 
>> wrappers for ranges without having to extend each range type.  For 
>> example:
>>
>> take(10,stride(2,cycle([3,2,5,3])));
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> [3,2,5,3].cycle().stride(2).take(10);
>>
>> And I thought damn it would be nice if ranges could implement ufcs, but 
>> other types that you didn't want to allow infinite extendability could 
>> avoid it.  That gave me an idea :)
>>
>>
>
> I just hope it doesn't cause real ufcs to become an even lower priority 
> than it already is.
>

Sorry for the partial top-posting...