On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Friday, March 09, 2012 16:08:34 Brad Anderson wrote: > > 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). > > 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 > Here are the unittests he added if you are curious about what currently works in dmd HEAD: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/blob/master/test/runnable/ufcs.d The issue "[tdpl] Implement uniform function call syntax" < http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3382> is marked as RESOLVED FIXED so, as far as I know, UFCS is done (ignoring the inevitable bugs that will eventually be uncovered). Regards, Brad Anderson
