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. Those "extension methods" are not members. All the proposal suggests is to allow member syntax (the emphasis on syntax) for free-standing functions... friends or no friends. "Member syntax" to "member" is like Elvis' cuff-link to Elvis. :-) Big difference... IMO.
...
I snipped the rest as I do agree with your point... which is not a bad thing, right? :-)