UFCS in the presence of alias this

[Jens Mueller]

Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 04/19/2012 11:28 AM, Jens Mueller wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >using UFCS with alias this behaves strange.
> >Consider
> >
> >struct Foo
> >{
> >     int _member;
> >     alias _member this;
> >}
> >
> >int foo(Foo f) { return f._member; }
> >int foo(int i) { return i; }
> >
> >unittest
> >{
> >     Foo f;
> >     f.foo(); // which function will be called? Isn't it ambiguous?
> >}
> >
> >Due to the alias this the function foo(int i) will be called. Is this
> >the indented behavior? Practically, I want UFCS to just perform a
> >syntactic rewrite from f.foo() to foo(f).
> >When using alias this you have to define the second function. Providing
> >only the first one results in a compile error. If you remove the alias
> >this things work as expected (first one needs to be defined).
> >
> >I stumbled upon this problem when trying to define additional functions
> >for a Tuple. Tuple has "alias field this" for falling back on
> >TypeTuple's opIndex. Unfortunately,
> >
> >alias Tuple!(int) Bar;
> >int bar(typeof(Bar.field) b) { return 1; }
> >
> >unittest
> >{
> >     Bar b;
> >     b.bar();
> >}
> >
> >does not work.
> >
> >Jens
> 
> This is a bug. You can report it to:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/

It's submitted.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7943
Thanks for your reply.

Jens