Will uniform function call syntax apply to operator overloads?

[Simen kjaeraas]

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:

> That would depend on what order it did things. If it replaced a.func()  
> with
> func(a) before it replaced a + b with a.opBinary!"+"(b), then it  
> wouldn't be
> more work at all. It would just naturally not work. If, on the other  
> hand, the
> overloaded operators were replaced first, then it could turn  
> a.opBinary!"+"(b)
> into opBinary!"+"(a, b).

True. I thought of it as a single step that does both, and repeatedly
if necessary.


> Personally, I do _not_ think that overloaded operators should work with  
> uniform
> function syntax, if for no other reason than because it doesn't actually  
> look
> like the uniform function syntax does. There is no . operator directly  
> involved.
> And I don't see any real value in overloaded operators which aren't part  
> of the
> type. Unlike C++, I don't think that we have any operators where having  
> an
> overloaded operator function be a member function is a problem (the  
> classic
> operators with that problem being >> and <<).

Yeah, I also think it should at least be discouraged. I cannot see any
situations wherein allowing it would bring significant enough advantages
to warrant its use. That said, I am willing to accept there may be such
situations, and perhaps even that they should be allowed.


-- 
Simen