On Friday, March 09, 2012 16:08:34 Brad Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>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).
I don't know what the current state of UFCS is. I know that Kenji has been working on it and that at least some portion of it has been checked in, but what exactly it enables at this point, I don't know. - Jonathan M Davis