UFCS for struct opCall?

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 16:36:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 4/9/13 12:27 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 16:22:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
>> wrote:
>>> How do you address construction of immutable objects?
>>>
>>
>> In general, the first assignement of a field in a constructor 
>> must be
>> handled as a declaration, not as an assignement. It solve
>> const/immutable construction issues as well as avoiding 
>> unecessary
>> copy/destruction as Ali pointed in a recent post.
>>
>> The magic only happens in the constructor, so it can still be 
>> considered
>> as a regular function seen from the outside.
>
> Right. This part I agree with. All I'm saying is that 
> constructors are typechecked differently from other functions, 
> so they must be distinguished somehow. Probably we're in 
> violent agreement, or if not: are you suggesting a change?
>

Constructor used to create lvalues, and so behave differently. 
I'm not sure what is the expected behavior at the end, but I 
think indeed that we envision the same thing here.

BTW, what do you mean by different typechecking rules ? How is it 
different than the code snippet posted above ?