"hijackable"/"customizable" keyword for solving the "customized algorithm" issue?

[Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 23:57:24 UTC, Meta wrote:
> It's a good idea, but yet another function annotation is pretty 
> much a no-go. How bad an idea is it to *always* defer to a 
> member function if the object/struct in question has such a 
> function defined? I thought that was the case already... I 
> suppose it will cause untold amounts of code breakage. Very 
> unfortunate.

UFCS only apply to the method call style, not the the function 
call style, so it's not a matter of priority here - 
`foo(myObject)` will not call the `foo.myObject()` method even if 
there is no `foo` function(in that case it'll just fail).

Having the function call style always defer to a member function 
is a really bad idea - and not just because of code breakage. 
It'll make it impossible to call a function on an object that has 
a method of the same name unless you use an alias or a function 
variable to copy the function - but then you have to make sure 
the alias\variable name is also not taken!

This will be a disaster for anyone who wants to build or use a D 
library that uses templates. Well, how common can that case be?