C++ UFCS update

[bitwise via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 10:27:59 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
> "Abstract
> This is the proposed wording for a unified call syntax based on 
> the idea that f(x,y) can invoke a member function, x.f(y), if 
> there are no f(x,y). The inverse transformation, from x.f(y) to 
> f(x,y) is not proposed."
>
> They were considering 6 alternatives and chose the worst...
> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P0251R0.pdf

Am I crazy, or is this paper proposing the exact opposite of what 
would be needed to do chaning of ranges or extension methods?

I don't get how it would be useful at all to type f(x, y) and 
have the compiler call x.f(y) for me. Why would I ever not want 
to just use member invocation syntax?

     Bit