Argumnentation against external function operator overloading is unconvincing

Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at
Wed Sep 21 12:19:55 PDT 2016

On 21.09.2016 21:01, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 21.09.2016 19:57, HaraldZealot wrote:
>> So if someone has real rationale not to have operator overloading as
>> external function I'm curios to arguments.
>> [1]
> There is no technical reason that would make the implementation of this
> feature difficult, if that is your question.
> Basically, the rationale is: external operators cannot be used in
> generic code that does not import the module defining the operators. C++
> works around this using ADL. Walter (justifiably) does not like ADL,
> hence the limitation.
> (I don't agree with that line of reasoning: obviously this is not only
> an issue for operators, but for any UFCS function; operators are mere
> syntactic sugar.)

BTW, another argument in favour of free function operators is opOpAssign 
for classes.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list