On Monday, 18 June 2018 at 14:19:30 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 6/18/18 7:16 AM, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
On Sunday, 18 May 2014 at 08:15:08 UTC, Steffen Wenz wrote:
Hi,
Just noticed that using UFCS does not work for nested
functions, and was wondering whether that's intended, and
what the rationale behind it is:
I just had the same question.
I can imagine that the context pointer of nested functions
complicates things, but making `bar` `static` does not help.
Has anything changed in recent years regarding the difficulty
of implementing UFCS for nested functions? Would it be easier
to only support static nested functions?
```
void main() {
static void bar(int x) {}
int x;
x.bar(); // Error: no property 'bar' for type 'int'
}
```
It's never been supported, and likely will not be. I think the
idea is that you can override expected behavior inside by
accidentally defining some function locally with the same name.
-Steve
Wondering how this is different than with non-nested functions?
If a global function has the same name as a member function then
the member function takes precedence. So wouldn't the same thing
just apply here if it were supported?
Cheers,
- Ali
