This doesn't make sense regarding alias this a static function

[12345swordy]

On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 17:11:23 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 5/16/21 12:48 PM, 12345swordy wrote:
>> On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 16:38:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
>> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 15:45:48 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>>> ```struct TIntStatic
>>>> {
>>>>     static int mX;
>>>>
>>>>     static @property int x() { return mX; }
>>>>     static @property void x(int v) { mX = v; }
>>>>
>>>>     alias x this;
>>>> }
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't like the following code
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> alias t = TIntStatic;
>>>> t(5);
>>>> ```
>>>> Yet is perfectly fine with this
>>>> ```
>>>> alias t = TIntStatic;
>>>> t = 5;
>>>> ```
>>>> What is with the inconsistency? If you allow t = 5 then 
>>>> surely you must allow t(5) as part of alias this a function.
>>>
>>> That’s considered a constructor. And there’s no member to 
>>> accept the 5.
>>>
>> 
>> You mean that this shouldn't work?
>> ```
>> alias t = TIntStatic;
>> t = 5;
>> ```
>
> Honestly, I'm not sure. `alias this` usually maps to a `this`, 
> i.e. an instance, not the type. I'm sure it's some quirk in how 
> the compiler treats alias this, but I wouldn't have expected it 
> to work.
>
> But the reason the constructor form doesn't work is 
> straightforward -- the constructor t() exists. Therefore, it 
> matches first, not using the alias this, and it's just a matter 
> of parameter count mismatch that fails (this is well-trodden 
> ground).
>
> BTW, is there a reason you are using `alias t` instead of the 
> real type? If:
>
> ```d
> TIntStatic = 5;
> ```
>
> doesn't work, but yours does, then that seems like a bug to me.
>
> -Steve

It part of the test suit that the user jinshill has created.
```d
TIntStatic = 5
```
Works fine. It is just that I am puzzled by this weird edge case.