Pow Expressions - not worth the juice?

[user1234]

On Tuesday, 3 February 2026 at 15:11:17 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> I have found that R’s custom infix operators are nice [1]. They 
> have a good balance between allowing library writers to be 
> expressible, as well as a bit of a warning that "here be 
> dragons".
>
> For those not familiar, putting an R example into a D context 
> it would mean you could do something like
>
> ```
> struct Foo
>     double x;
>     bool opBinary(string op)(double y)
>         if (op == "%divisible%")
>     {
>         return x % y == 0 ? true : false;
>     }
> }
> ```
> where the basically the `"op"` can be anything so long as it is 
> delimited in a form like "%op%"
>
> It would be even better if you could do something like (to my 
> knowledge `opBinary` would need to be a member function).
>
> ```
> bool opBinary(string op)(double x, double y)
>     if (op == "%divisible%")
> {
>     return x % y == 0 ? true : false;
> }
> ```
>
> [1] https://www.datamentor.io/r-programming/infix-operator

So you just avoid the call-expression syntax so that you can put 
spaces between the operands and the operator ? I'm not sure this 
solves any problem. Maybe you can provide enlightning examples ? 
The one from your link is not convincing.