I dun a DIP, possibly the best DIP ever

[Timon Gehr]

On 24.04.20 10:03, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 4/24/2020 12:10 AM, Manu wrote:
>> Your idea all falls over anywhere it encounters variadic args, or 
>> potential for overloads though. Without an explicit expression, the 
>> only way forward is to preserve existing D semantics (or it's a 
>> radically breaking change), and that will severely narrow the 
>> applicability of this proposal.
>>
>> Consider this:
>>
>>    alias Tup = AliasSeq!(0, 2, 3);
>>    void fun(int);
>>    fun(Tup);  // scalar argument receives tuple, it can expand, so: 
>> fun(0), fun(1), fun(2)
> 
> Write it as:
> 
>      Tup.fun();
> ...

That's the same thing.

import std.stdio, std.meta;
alias seq = AliasSeq!(0, 2, 3);

void fun(int a, int b, int c){
     writeln(a," ",b," ",c);
}

void main(){
     seq.fun(); // 0 2 3
}

Hijacking UFCS to designate some independent distinction is bad language 
design. Language features should be orthogonal.

> Of course,
> 
>      fun(1, Tup);
> 
> cannot be rewritten in this way, but then a rationale will be necessary 
> as to why it must be written as func(1, Tup) instead of fun(Tup, 1).

Certainly not. The order of parameters of func is what it is and 
depending on the situation you will want to expand one or the other.