Operator overloading through UFCS doesn't work

[Tommi]

On Sunday, 14 October 2012 at 06:22:03 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 October 2012 at 17:01:27 UTC, Tommi wrote:
>> Another way to describe my reasoning...
>>
>> According to TDPL, if var is a variable of a user-defined 
>> type, then:
>> ++var
>> gets rewritten as:
>> var.opUnary!"++"()
>
> Not always. If user-defined type has an alias this to integer 
> member, than something different would happen.

Yeah, I wasn't specific enough with that example.

> It would be also interesting to see, how operation ++T would 
> differ because somebody imported module with opUnary method. 
> Because opUnary suits better than alias this, dmd will issue 
> call to that function, it it see its declaration.

Actually, it seems that alias this has precedence over UFCS. So, 
a free function opUnary wouldn't ever suit better than an actual 
method opUnary of the thing referred to by that alias this.