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

[monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 16 May 2014 at 16:50:37 UTC, Yota wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 18:05:44 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
> ...
>> I just had a crazy idea. "hijackable" keyword (yeah... another 
>> keyword):
>>
>> Given a function:
>> "Ret foo(T input, Args... args) @hijackable"
>>
>> Then, when the compiler sees:
>> "foo(input, args);"
>>
>> It will always forward directly to T.foo if T.foo exists, 
>> bypassing std.foo entirely.
> ...
>
> What about stuff like this:
>   import some.pkg;
>   some.pkg.foo(x);
>
> Does this still call x.foo()?

In theory, yes, because "some.pkg" would *be* X.foo, or at the 
very least, a very thin wrapper. You'd get the very same result 
with "static if" based implementation, such as "moveFront", where 
"std.range.moveFront(r)" still just calls "r.moveFront()". Ditto 
for "take", which just calls opSlice.

> What if 'foo' is an alias for 'bar', or vice versa?

An alias shouldn't change anything I think.