Why is ^^= not part of type definition of integers?

[12345swordy]

On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 16:08:28 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:57:33 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:27:13 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:20:53 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> pow can be inlined, there is no optimization problem here.
>>>
>>> As for why the rewriting doesn't happen in general I assume 
>>> it's because there wasn't demand for it.
>>>
>>> Why is this a roadblock, can't you just lower to the form 
>>> similar to the one you suggest?
>>
>> The rewrite currently only works if you mark your get and set 
>> functions as property. I am not sure if the rewrite should be 
>> allowed for functions that are not mark property when it comes 
>> to ^^= operator for integers.
>>
>> -Alex
>
> You've lost me.

Should g ^^= 2 be allowed for non- at property functions? Where g() 
is a function call where function definitions void g(int value) 
and int g() exist.

-Alex

-Alex