On 2013-06-23 12:04, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I would have thought that that was obvious, and I fail to see why that would be a problem. The only risk I see in allowing static and non-static functions to be overloaded, is that if you have static function being called with an instance, and you add a non-static overload, then the code would silently change to call the non-static function. But we have that exact same problem with UFCS and member functions as it is, and that wouldn't break any existing code (since you can't overload on static right now). It would just be a future risk of breaking code.
That's true, I didn't think of that. -- /Jacob Carlborg
