* bogus codegen with static opAssign() usage *

[kris]

kris wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>>     a = b;
>>
>> is replaced with:
>>
>>     a.opAssign(b);
>>
>> not:
>>
>>     a = a.opAssign(b);
>>
>> The return value of opAssign comes in to play with:
>>
>>     c = a = b;
>>
>> which is rewritten as:
>>
>>     c = a.opAssign(b);
> 
> 
> 
> Doh! Doh! Doh!
> 
> My bad; I saw this elsewhere and just assumed it would operate correctly.
> 
> The syntax, however, is very clean. Importantly, it supports the 
> unification or /centralization/ of all those 'new' invocations. I'd go 
> so far as to say such a syntax could represent a bridge between OO and 
> scripting:
> 
> ----
> String s = "mystring";
> ----
> 
> ----
> File f = "/foo/bar.d";
> ----
> 
> ----
> Regex r = "^(.*)$";
> ----
> 
> There's a fairly wide range of simple applicability for this kinda' 
> thing. Would be great if static opAssign() could support this, or some 
> other operator were enabled?
> 
> How about it?


One note: an operator is suggested so that structs could take advantage 
of this also. Otherwise, some kind of 'property' assignment for a ctor 
might have done the trick?