Why does opCall disable struct-literal syntax?

[rcorre via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 02:43:06 UTC, rcorre wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 November 2015 at 23:54:52 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Sunday, 8 November 2015 at 23:26:44 UTC, rcorre wrote:
>>> Is this just a technical limitation, or is there some other 
>>> reasoning?
>>
>> Old bug/misdesign inherited from old D before there were 
>> struct constructors. It really should be the rest of the way 
>> fixed, but non-static and static methods, including opCall, 
>> are still not properly distinguished by the D language.
>>
>> Type.staticFunction(); // compiles, used to be done to kinda 
>> mimic constructors before they were there
>>
>> obj.staticFunction(); // also compiles, which means a change 
>> at this point would be a breaking change
>
> That seems like the opposite of what's happening here. It's not 
> a static member being invoked on an instance, but an instance 
> member being invoked on the type.
>
> Type.memberFunction() should never be possible, right?

Oh, I think I see the confusion. If you _were_ to define static 
opCall, it could also be used on an instance. Which makes 
distinguishing the two ... problematic. Weird.