On 6/18/18 1:25 PM, bauss wrote:
On Monday, 18 June 2018 at 17:16:29 UTC, aliak wrote:
On Monday, 18 June 2018 at 14:19:30 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 6/18/18 7:16 AM, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
On Sunday, 18 May 2014 at 08:15:08 UTC, Steffen Wenz wrote:
Hi,
Just noticed that using UFCS does not work for nested functions,
and was wondering whether that's intended, and what the rationale
behind it is:
I just had the same question.
I can imagine that the context pointer of nested functions
complicates things, but making `bar` `static` does not help. Has
anything changed in recent years regarding the difficulty of
implementing UFCS for nested functions? Would it be easier to only
support static nested functions?
```
void main() {
static void bar(int x) {}
int x;
x.bar(); // Error: no property 'bar' for type 'int'
}
```
It's never been supported, and likely will not be. I think the idea
is that you can override expected behavior inside by accidentally
defining some function locally with the same name.
Wondering how this is different than with non-nested functions? If a
global function has the same name as a member function then the member
function takes precedence. So wouldn't the same thing just apply here
if it were supported?
I second this.
What then can happen is that your local calls can get hijacked from
outside the module, if someone happens to define something later that
you happened to import. D tries to avoid such possibilities.
There's not much precedent for local symbols being overridden by
module-level symbols.
-Steve
