On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Bill Baxter <wbax...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer > <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:06:27 -0500, Pelle Månsson <pelle.mans...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >> >>>> Isn't opBinary almost identical to opDispatch? The only difference I >>>> see is that opBinary works with operators as the 'symbol' and dispatch >>>> works >>>> with valid symbols. Is it important to distinguish between operators and >>>> custom dispatch? >>>> -Steve >>> >>> opBinary is a binary operator, opDispatch can be anything. I think they >>> should be kept separate. >> >> You could say the same thing about dynamic properties. How come we don't >> split those out as opProperty? > > That's because of what Andrei pointed out: &a.b . > The compiler can't tell if you want a delegate to the method b, or the > address of a property b.
... but maybe the syntax for "the function itself" should be distinct from "dereference" anyway. I can't think of any reason the two need to use the same syntax other than that &func was called a "function pointer" back in C. There's no case for "generic code" needing it to be the same syntax as far as I can tell. --bb
