Pow Expressions - not worth the juice?

[jmh530]

On Tuesday, 3 February 2026 at 15:23:09 UTC, user1234 wrote:
> [snip]
>> ```
>> 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.

I was sketching out what a D version of the example from that 
link, not that I would want to do that in D. We have UFCS.

The idea is that you can put anything in within the "op" of 
"%op%", so it's on the user to decide how they want to make use 
of it (or not). R uses "%*%" for matrix multiplication. That's 
more ergonomic than `A.matmul(B)`.