On 5 September 2016 at 10:50, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On 9/4/2016 2:36 PM, Timon Gehr wrote: >> >> Declare-call ordering issues for overload sets are not limited to local >> scopes. >> This problem needs to be solved anyway. The fact that the scope is local >> adds >> exactly zero additional complications. > > > I know that static if brings with it ordering problems. That's not a > justification for adding them to statements. > > >>> Besides, I showed a method of how the overloads could be done with the >>> existing language. >> >> That's not the point. What's perhaps more telling is that you initially >> got it >> wrong. It /wants/ to be valid code. > > > Maybe, but if I redesigned the language for every mistake I made, nothing > would get done. > > My point with all this is ADL-workalike behavior can be reasonably done with > existing D core features available *now* in all 3 compilers. It means we > don't have to panic and rewrite the compiler right now - Manu can use these > techniques and get his work done, even though it isn't quite what he > envisions. He's not dead in the water.
I already worked-around my problems. But the point of my post is that I feel the problem is of very high importance. I don't think the situation is okay, since we're making design recommendations that lead straight to these problems. And these modern D design patterns are the thing in D I'm most excited about, and keen to share with not-yet-D-users.