Should we add `a * b` for vectors?

[jmh530]

On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 20:36:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
> It forces them to actually be designed with the type and be 
> easily located with the type. Would you want a programmer to be 
> able to go and implement opBinary!"+" for strings? I sure 
> wouldn't. And I don't want anyone doing that for user-defined 
> types that they didn't define either.
>

Hmm, you could think of it like the current default is that you 
cannot do outer operator overloading. We have @disable this(); 
for disabling default construction. What about something like
@outer T opBinary(string op)(T)
     if(op == "+")
which means that it allows opBinary to be defined outside the 
struct/class. The default would be that it's not allowed. And it 
would give a hint to somebody that they would need to look for 
that method elsewhere?