C++ UFCS update

[Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 23 February 2016 at 10:16:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 February 2016 at 07:46:08 UTC, Era Scarecrow 
> wrote:
>>  If | effectively does the same as . (at least that's the 
>> impression I get, maybe I'm totally wrong), what benefit does 
>> it give other than confusing or obfuscating code?
>
> It doesn't confuse or  obfuscate code, on the contrary, it 
> brings clarity and makes the code more legible.

  You know, i remember that in C there was a dereferencing symbol, 
it was ->, and that was thrown out for UFCS as well as simplicity.

  c->x and c.x were basically the same. Why not use -> instead of 
| ?

  That would be fun wouldn't it. To borrow from w0rp's post 
earlier as I don't do this much.

x.map!(...).filter!(...).reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)|filter!(...)|reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)->filter!(...)->reduce!(...)

Honestly looking at them side by side, I don't like |, -> is 
almost preferable except I sometimes don't hit the > and have to 
re-edit it, unlike using ., but that's a minor gripe there.

  Hell why not extend to the rest of the operators? Don't forget 
C++'s iostream pushes using very specific low level operations to 
do weird things.

x.map!(...)>>filter!(...)>>reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)<<filter!(...)<<reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)^filter!(...)^reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)-filter!(...)-reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)+filter!(...)+reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)&filter!(...)&reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)*filter!(...)*reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)!filter!(...)!reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)~filter!(...)~reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)%filter!(...)%reduce!(...)

Why stop there?

x.map!(...)&&filter!(...)&&reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)||filter!(...)||reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)::filter!(...)::reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)=>filter!(...)=>reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)++filter!(...)++reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)--filter!(...)--reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)<=>filter!(...)<=>reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)<>filter!(...)<>reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)>=<filter!(...)>=<reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)><filter!(...)><reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)!!filter!(...)!!reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)~~filter!(...)~~reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)%%filter!(...)%%reduce!(...)

I still stand by that _unless_ it shows it really improves it 
somehow, or adds something vital that it shouldn't be there.