Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, March 09, 2012 16:08:34 Brad Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>wrote:
> > On Friday, March 09, 2012 17:41:01 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > > I'll say I *don't* agree with the rejection of aliases on principle --
> > > aliases can be extremely useful/helpful, and they cost literally nothing
> > > (the "cognitive cost" on the docs is a BS argument IMO). I just don't
> > > agree with consuming so many common symbols for the sake of sugar.
> > 
> > aliases need to have a really good argument for existing. If UFCS is fully
> > implemented, then I think that there is _some_ argument for having stuff
> > like
> > hours and minutes, because then you can do stuff like 5.seconds() (though
> > honestly, I really don't like the idea). The alias enables different
> > usages
> > rather than simply being another name for the same thing.
> 
> What remains on UFCS? I've heard someone (Nick?) say he'd like it to match
> static member functions too. I haven't tested but it seems like
> 5.seconds() should work ever since Kenji's pull request was merged a couple
> of days ago (thanks Kenji and Walter, I'm really looking forward to that
> change).

I don't know what the current state of UFCS is. I know that Kenji has been 
working on it and that at least some portion of it has been checked in, but 
what exactly it enables at this point, I don't know.

- Jonathan M Davis