Ambiguity error reporting

[Georg Wrede]

BCS wrote:
> How about:
> 
> Test.d(158): function Test.put called with argument types:
> (char[4])
> matches at least:

This change would be small, but it would be immensely helpful.

The current error reporting gives the (possibly subliminal, but still as 
misleading) impression that there is *exactly one* ambiguity.


But counting or enumerating all the possible matches is, IMHO, not 
worthwhile, /especially/ with the above change. The first ambiguity 
coupled with "at least" should be enough to point the programmer well 
into the right directon.

Still, if Walter decides it is *trivial to implement a realiably 
comprehensive* (as in no omissions, ever) list, then ok, do it. But 
either "the first only" or "all", never "found these" and just when the 
beginning programmer learns to rely upon the list, suddenly there are a 
lot more matches that didn't get reported this particular time. That 
only confuses and p***** off people.