Why is ^^= not part of type definition of integers?

[Max Haughton]

On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:57:33 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:27:13 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:20:53 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> pow can be inlined, there is no optimization problem here.
>>
>> As for why the rewriting doesn't happen in general I assume 
>> it's because there wasn't demand for it.
>>
>> Why is this a roadblock, can't you just lower to the form 
>> similar to the one you suggest?
>
> The rewrite currently only works if you mark your get and set 
> functions as property. I am not sure if the rewrite should be 
> allowed for functions that are not mark property when it comes 
> to ^^= operator for integers.
>
> -Alex

You've lost me.