UFCS for struct opCall?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 4/9/13 10:35 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 13:02:27 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>> deadalnix:
>>
>>> I don't think this makes any sense. Constructor are not regular
>>> function.
>>
>> From studying functional languages like Haskell I have learnt that
>> considering "constructors" like the other functions gives some
>> advantages. The uniformity of the idea of "function" is very useful.
>>
>
> Right now, in D, you'll find plenty of magic associated with
> constructors. This is fundamentaly problematic when you want to disguise
> them as functions.
>
> I would be in general for reducing the magic associated with constructor
> in order to allow them to behave like function, but right now, they are
> different beasts.

They are different than regular functions by necessity. A constructor 
must start on an raw object ("unprepared" in a sense) and bring it to a 
meaningful state. In the case of immutable and const objects, that 
grants the constructor special characteristics that are very unlike 
regular functions. So they are special.

Andrei