UFCS and constructors

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 08:16:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 09:35:38 monarch_dodra wrote:
>> Coming back from learn here. There was an example where 
>> somebody
>> "accidentally" called a constructor via UFCS. I am kind of
>> surprised that it worked. I thought UFCS was for functions 
>> only,
>> and that constructors (specifically) were off limits.
>> 
>> Am I mistaken? Is UFCS explicitly allowed for constructors? Or
>> did we kind of forget to take it into account?
>
> I'm not sure that it was ever decided one way or the other so 
> much as happened
> into being due to how UFCS was implemented. I know that it's 
> come up before,
> and folks were arguing on both sides. Personally, I think that 
> it's a horrible
> idea.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

We are 2. that is horrible.