Operator overhaul

[Bill Baxter]

(Reply to message on d.announce)

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> Jason House wrote:

>>> Is there a good reason why it shouldn't be possible to use opAssign as
>>> a replacement for opIndexAssign?
>>>
>>> --bb
>>
>> opindexAssign will still be needed when opindex has a non-ref return type.
>
> I think the entire operator paraphernalia is due for a serious overhaul.

O_o!  Oh noohs!  We may have to start calling it the "E" language soon.

Seriously, though, if the overhaul makes it possible to do multiple
slices with multiple $'s, then I'm all for it.
As in   hyperArray[$-1,  1..$,  0..$-2]
Even better would be python's "just leave it out" slicing:
As in   hyperArray[$-1,  1..,  ..$-2]

It's a bit easier to read in my eyes.

There was also the stuff discussed before about passing in the op as a
delegate or template parameter to give the class designer a chance to
run some pre- or post- op code as desired.  Or rewriting x+=y type ops
to be x=x+y

So we have:
1. multiple slice indexing
2. generalized $ indexing
3. generalized op execution

Any other operator-related issues?

--bb