UFCS for struct opCall?

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 13:02:27 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> deadalnix:
>
>> I don't think this makes any sense. Constructor are not 
>> regular function.
>
> From studying functional languages like Haskell I have learnt 
> that considering "constructors" like the other functions gives 
> some advantages. The uniformity of the idea of "function" is 
> very useful.
>

Right now, in D, you'll find plenty of magic associated with 
constructors. This is fundamentaly problematic when you want to 
disguise them as functions.

I would be in general for reducing the magic associated with 
constructor in order to allow them to behave like function, but 
right now, they are different beasts.

> What you are saying here has no content, so it has no value 
> (it's equivalent to a -0 vote). If you want to put an argument 
> you have to explain what are the practical disadvantages/risks 
> in D of calling a struct opCall with the UFCS.
>

UFCS work with function, but do not with first class functions 
(ie values) or delegate. opCall on struct is much closer to a 
delegate than a function.