Argumnentation against external function operator overloading is unconvincing

[pineapple via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 at 15:25:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> So, if they want their code to work with anyone else's code 
> they pretty much need to use their own set of range primitives 
> that do not conflict with the standard ones rather than trying 
> to redefine the standard ones. And if they don't care about 
> interacting with anyone else's code, they can always just fork 
> druntime and Phobos to make them do whatever they want. But 
> trying to redefine some of the basic primitives that D's 
> runtime and standard library use while still trying to interact 
> with anyone else's code is a recipe for disaster.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

I don't mind writing my own code rather than interacting with 
someone else's, and I severely dislike many of the design 
decisions made regarding phobos. Which is why I've been building 
my own alternative to the standard library that I can use as a 
basis for software I develop. It depends on phobos for only a 
handful of things, and I'm working toward a point where I won't 
need it for anything. I recognize that the preference is unusual, 
but I insist on my and others' ability to pursue such a 
preference.

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 at 14:50:04 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> It seems you want to define ranges with similar syntax but 
> subtle semantic differences, e.g. r.front and r[0] to mean 
> different things. The entire Phobos is designed under the 
> assumptions that ranges work a specific way, so in order to 
> design a different mechanism you may want to use different 
> syntactic interfaces.

I have no problem with phobos being phobos, and treating ranges 
as it does. I don't want the core language to adopt the same way 
of treating ranges because while I recognize that it is far too 
late to change phobos' way of thinking about ranges - much less 
the community's - I think it was a mistake and that the quality 
of D as a language shouldn't suffer for its sake. The core 
language should define the bare minimum that it needs to for 
ranges to be a useful concept - as it does now - and should leave 
the rest up to phobos or whatever else is actually implementing 
the ranges.

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 at 14:50:04 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> I speculate this has to do with our community being 
> self-selected as opinionated folks who don't do well with 
> conventional wisdom.

You have described me to a T.