On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:48:04 -0400, deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 30/03/2012 14:52, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:22:12 -0400, deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Immagine you want to define your own to!xxx() for your type xxx. (It
is dumb case because you have toString, but an interesting exercise
because for your own stuff, not something that is specified in the
language - like toString - the same could happen with no easy solution.
I don't think this disproves anything. It should be possible without
ambiguity given the rules I stated.
-Steve
You are messing up everything.
First, this have NOTHING to do with UFCS.
Yes it does. The special rule only applies when using UFCS functions.
Second, current D import system have no ambiguity. But you propose to
change that system. That would introduce ambiguity.
Stating it doesn't prove it. I claim no ambiguity, simply because I
cannot see what the ambiguous case would be. It's very easy to disprove
me, show one example.
Even if you don't believe me, which is fine, it is safe to assume so
unless you can prove otherwise.
I'm not disputing the current module system is unambiguous. I assert that
my additions do not make it unambiguous. Trying to prove that it's
unambiguous would be really really hard, and require probably years of
research. I don't really want to prove it.
But disproving it can be done with one case. If you believe it's
ambiguous, you must have a case in mind, no?
-Steve
