C++ UFCS update

[Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 10:27:59 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
> They were considering 6 alternatives and chose the worst...
> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P0251R0.pdf

I'm not so sure this is the worst, given the C++ history. Think 
about this for a minute: "f(x,y) can invoke a member function, 
x.f(y), if there are no f(x,y)"

That means you can override member functions with local 
non-member functions, that it will encourage programmers to write 
`f(x, y)` and thus be more compatible with older compilers via 
freestanding shims, and just plain be more convincing for them to 
actually use non-friend, non-member functions which is the key 
encapsulation goal of UFCS.

It might not be an ideal decision, but I do think it is an OK one 
for C++.