On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Vladimir Batov < Vladimir.Batov@constrainttec.com> wrote:
On 2016-06-01 11:40, Gavin Lambert wrote:
On 1/06/2016 12:35, Vladimir Batov wrote:
I am not sure if "to allow free function invocation syntax to invoke member functions and vice-versa" is exactly what Emil wanted. Quoting from the top -- the "declaration of non-friend "member" functions outside of the type definition". I read it as Emil wants it to be a "member" but declared "outside".
That's what extension methods are though, as I mentioned in my other post.
Even though Emil did clarify that he indeed meant "extension methods" functionality, I really feel it begs for a correction as I feel we are dangerously mixing the terms.
Yes I stand corrected. Different syntax, same idea. I still don't think that it's that important of a feature, since my premise is that there are no benefits to the member function call syntax. Emil