ADL

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

On 5 September 2016 at 10:50, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 9/4/2016 2:36 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>
>> Declare-call ordering issues for overload sets are not limited to local
>> scopes.
>> This problem needs to be solved anyway. The fact that the scope is local
>> adds
>> exactly zero additional complications.
>
>
> I know that static if brings with it ordering problems. That's not a
> justification for adding them to statements.
>
>
>>> Besides, I showed a method of how the overloads could be done with the
>>> existing language.
>>
>> That's not the point. What's perhaps more telling is that you initially
>> got it
>> wrong. It /wants/ to be valid code.
>
>
> Maybe, but if I redesigned the language for every mistake I made, nothing
> would get done.
>
> My point with all this is ADL-workalike behavior can be reasonably done with
> existing D core features available *now* in all 3 compilers. It means we
> don't have to panic and rewrite the compiler right now - Manu can use these
> techniques and get his work done, even though it isn't quite what he
> envisions. He's not dead in the water.

I already worked-around my problems. But the point of my post is that
I feel the problem is of very high importance. I don't think the
situation is okay, since we're making design recommendations that lead
straight to these problems. And these modern D design patterns are the
thing in D I'm most excited about, and keen to share with
not-yet-D-users.