possible "solution" for ufcs

[Michel Fortin]

On 2011-06-06 15:00:13 -0400, "Steven Schveighoffer" 
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> said:

> And it does indeed work (2.053)...
> 
> So we can have ufcs without any changes to the compiler, and we also 
> make  it a *choice* for people who don't want to allow infinite 
> extendability,  and don't want to deal with possible compiler 
> ambiguities.
> 
> The opDispatch could even be a mixin itself (I think).
> 
> What do you think?

Clever. But how does it work for properties? Pure/safe/nothrow 
functions? Ref and out parameters? Note that properties specifically 
are already problem for the compiler-implemented array-member syntax.

Bottom line: there's a lot of work to do to make UFCS work right. And 
it'll require some language-level changes anyway if we want it to work 
right.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/