Argumnentation against external function operator overloading is unconvincing

[Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 23 September 2016 at 08:50:56 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>
> FQN disables UFCS. Nothing specific to operators here.
>
> There is no reason why there should be any difference between a 
> + b and a.opBinary!"+"(b). In fact, 2.opBinary!"+"(3) should 
> work too.

Currently this is tricky to implement in the compiler.
And it widens the scope for name-conflicts immensely!

I do not see a case where UFCS overloaded operators are worth the 
trouble they introduce.