post qualifier and template constraint limitation, is there a reason ?

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 17 January 2015 at 21:15:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/17/2015 8:56 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Saturday, 17 January 2015 at 10:05:29 UTC, Walter Bright 
>> wrote:
>>> On 1/17/2015 12:33 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>>>> This is accepted :
>>>> auto fun(T)(T T) inout if(...) { ... }
>>>>
>>>> This is not :
>>>> auto fun(T)(T T) if(...) inout { ... }
>>>>
>>>> Is there a reason ?
>>>
>>> There was no known reason to.
>>
>> Is that possible to make it work then ? Should I open a bug ?
>
> Sure, but you'll need a rationale that is better than "why not" 
> :-)

Because I can never remember which one it is and run into the 
wrong case 50% of the time. I'd assume that I'm not the only one, 
but, as I have done for ages, do not consider this as an issue 
big enough to complain. This is the kind of thing that drain you 
productivity minute by minute.

Kind of like

class C(T) : B if(...) {} vs class C(T) if(...) : B {}

That Brian mentioned in his DConf talk. It is just another 
instance of the same problem. Only one used to be accepted, but 
now both are valid. It looks like to me like another instance of 
the same problem.