On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:54:54 +0100 Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote:
> On 2013-01-23 21:46, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > > I confess that it's syntax like that that makes dislike UFCS. I can > > see why you might like it, but personally, I find it to be hideous. > > > > But as long as you're not using -property, you can do 2.days to get > > a Duration of 2 days, much as I wish that you couldn't. > > The point is that the code should read like regular text. But if you > do: > > auto t = ago(days(2)); > > It's backwards[...] I'll certainly grant that, insofar as the written order is backwards from the execution order. I think the "ago" is that part that bugs me the most. It's too clever. I could live with "2.days", but I'd prefer "days(2)" since that looks like a type constructor, and "days" isn't a property of 2. Maybe "2.toDays()", but at that point I'd still rather just do the simpler "days(2)".
