On Friday, 23 November 2012 at 08:42:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I think that we'll probably need to add them in this case due
to efficiency
concerns, but it's not without cost. We don't want too many
stray functions
doing almost the same thing in Phobos.
- Jonathan M Davis
I'd say it's all a matter of presentation. I'm sure they can all
easily be regrouped into what feels like "a neat family of
functions". What counts is the perceived complexity, more than
the actual amount of function names. They aren't quite overloads,
but it doesn't make them much more complex than, say, the "to"
functions.
