[Issue 13579] New: Add limitations to Uniform Function Call Syntax

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13579

          Issue ID: 13579
           Summary: Add limitations to Uniform Function Call Syntax
           Product: D
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: All
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: spec
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
          Assignee: nobody at puremagic.com
          Reporter: DeathByNukes at gmail.com

I don't yet have much personal experience writing D code but I have a strong
suspicion that "extension methods" are superior to UFCS.

First I want to note that the Dr. Dobb's UFCS article
(http://www.drdobbs.com/blogs/cpp/232700394) describes extension methods
incorrectly. Extension methods can be called with infix notation or with
function notation; marking a method as an extension method only increases the
ways it can be used.

1. UFCS is not self-documenting. I assume that in most use cases, a function is
intended either to be called as a function, or to be called via UFCS. D doesn't
give us a way to express this intention.
2. As a result of #1, UFCS will pollute auto-complete lists and similar tools.
Tools will probably end up needing to add tool-specific ways to mark up UFCS
functions.
3. I think UFCS has pitfalls similar to C++'s conversion constructors, except D
doesn't even have the "explicit" keyword to opt out of it and it's not limited
to single-parameter functions.

If breaking backward compatibility is at all an option, I suggest requiring
functions to opt in to UFCS syntax in some way. Probably by adding an
attribute. If someone wants to use UFCS on a function that doesn't allow it,
they might be allowed to declare an identical function with the attribute added
which forwards the call. A template or keyword could automate this. Perhaps
when old-style UFCS is deprecated a DMD flag could be added that automatically
generates source files with the attribute added to functions with UFCS usage.

If it's too late to fix it or opt-in is undesirable, I suggest something like
C++'s "explicit" keyword which allows us to disable UFCS for specific
functions.

I was unable to find any good pre-existing discussion on these problems but
please close this Issue without warning if it has already been thoroughly
considered.

--