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

[Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 02:07:40 UTC, Meta wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 01:49:17 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
>> 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?
>
> That's exactly what the proposed @hijackable annotation on a 
> function would do, if I understand it correctly.

Yes, but there is quite a difference between applying this to 
specific functions where this behavior is desirable and applying 
this to everything.