On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Friday, March 09, 2012 17:41:01 Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > > I'll say I *don't* agree with the rejection of aliases on principle -- > > aliases can be extremely useful/helpful, and they cost literally nothing > > (the "cognitive cost" on the docs is a BS argument IMO). I just don't > > agree with consuming so many common symbols for the sake of sugar. > > aliases need to have a really good argument for existing. If UFCS is fully > implemented, then I think that there is _some_ argument for having stuff > like > hours and minutes, because then you can do stuff like 5.seconds() (though > honestly, I really don't like the idea). The alias enables different usages > rather than simply being another name for the same thing. > > What remains on UFCS? I've heard someone (Nick?) say he'd like it to match static member functions too. I haven't tested but it seems like 5.seconds() should work ever since Kenji's pull request was merged a couple of days ago (thanks Kenji and Walter, I'm really looking forward to that change). Regards, Brad Anderson > Now, in this particular case, it's that much worse for exactly the reason > that > you're against it: it uses common names for free functions. It's not as > big a > problem as it would be in C or C++, but it's still a problem. There's also > some risk that it will break code. > > - Jonathan M Davis >
