Uniform Function Call Syntax?

[user001 via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 4 March 2016 at 02:09:25 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
> On Friday, 4 March 2016 at 01:56:34 UTC, user001 wrote:
>> Was just wondering why UFCS only works in one direction, that 
>> is why functions can be used as if it were part of a 
>> struct/class but not the other way around.
>>
>> int dot;
>>
>> float value = dot(a, b); // would be same as a.dot(b)
>>                          // doesn't try to use local "int dot"
>
>  Immediately looking at only that part of the code, i have to 
> ask 'how the hell are you calling the int???'. Of course i can 
> tell from your source dot is also a function in the vector.
>
>  Considering dot could now shadow the variables or function 
> names, it would quickly QUICKLY become annoying. A hierarchy of 
> how the call is used plus the documentation of what it's 
> obviously doing is a much better approach. Not to mention we've 
> been using . and -> and * so long for accessing/de-referencing 
> members that are attached so long that changing it is probably 
> not an option.

You can say the same thing about how it is currently implemented.

	int[] arr = [ 0, 1, 2, 3 ];
	
	static map(alias F)(int[])
	{
	}
	
	writeln(arr.map!(a => a * 2)); // what does this mean array 
doesnt have a map function, does it use the local map function or 
the global one?

> MAYBE if you were starting a language from scratch, but in this 
> case i would firmly say no, this is ugly and confusing.

Well it could possibly be happening with C++17 so it's not that 
big of stretch to add it to an existing language, especially if 
that language already has it half implemented.