__traits so long and ugly, what about ::?

[KennyTM~]

On Mar 31, 11 09:42, Ary Manzana wrote:
> I just hate it when you have to write too much to get simple things
> done.
>
> Does this type have a member? Current approach:
>
> 1. import std.traits;
> 2. invoke hasMember!(S, "m")
>
> Another approach:
>
> 1. I have the type, let's ask it: S::hasMember("m")
>
> Map's thought to code.
>
> My problem is that when you start using D's cool features you end up
> with a really hard to understand and obscure code...

How often do you really needs feature in __traits? I've grepped my code 
which uses a lot of templates and CTFE, and it only appears in 2 lines

     else static if (__traits(isScalar, T)) {
         static if (__traits(compiles, T.init.re))

Therefore I oppose the use of :: just for __traits, because it's so rare.

Now I have a counter-proposal,

     T::ident(x, y, z, ...)  <=>  ident!(T, x, y, z, ...)

then hasMember can be invoked as

     import std.traits;
     ...
     S::hasMember("m")

Isn't it better than reserving :: just for __traits?