I dun a DIP, possibly the best DIP ever

[Walter Bright]

On 4/24/2020 1:34 AM, Manu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 6:20 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d 
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com <mailto:digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 4/24/2020 12:39 AM, Manu wrote:
>      > It doesn't make much sense to think in terms of primitive types. As I
>     just said
>      > (but you truncated), operator overloads are almost certainly part of this
>     equation.
> 
>     Operator overloads don't change it.
> 
> 
> This claim doesn't make sense. A custom type can BinOp any adjacent type it likes.

I can't see the legitimate use case for:

    ((t[0] + t[1]) + t[2])

for a tuple if relying on diverse types with operator overloading, because of 
the associative ordering dependency.

If anyone relied on that, it would be a major code smell. Adding new syntax for 
tuples to support that would be a mistake.


>      > I think it's more common to do a fold like this with logical operators
>     though;
>      > `&&` appears 9 times out of 10 in my code.
> 
>           [ cast(bool)Tup ]
> 
> And then fold them?

Since then it's an array, use the existing array folding methods.