• Peter Alexander (3/3) Oct 13 2014 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++
• Francesco Cattoglio (2/5) Oct 13 2014 Seriously, not even a mention? Ok, I'm mad. Can I be mad?
• Szymon Gatner (3/11) Oct 13 2014 To be fair, it is not a new concept in C++...
• Brad Anderson (8/16) Oct 13 2014 If you want but from what I recall the idea for UFCS came from an
• Paulo Pinto (6/9) Oct 13 2014 After going through most of the CppCon videos during the weekend,
• ketmar via Digitalmars-d (3/4) Oct 13 2014 a monster praying "keeeel meeeee..." ;-)
• NimrodTheShlomo (3/6) Oct 13 2014 UFCS in Pascal
• ponce (3/6) Oct 13 2014 UFCS could be fun in C++ with dependence on import order and the
• ketmar via Digitalmars-d (3/5) Oct 13 2014 c++ coders love to fight with their tools. ;-)
• Paulo Pinto (5/8) Oct 13 2014 Just noticed that Herb Sutter also presented one,
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (5/13) Oct 13 2014 Yes, this was a much better idea than UFCS. Having a syntax that
• Walter Bright (5/8) Oct 13 2014 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2j3kr4/proposal_for_unifie...
• Steven Schveighoffer (6/16) Oct 13 2014 The concept is in D1 for arrays since as long as I've ever used D.
• Walter Bright (2/26) Oct 13 2014 Thanks!
• Jacob Carlborg (5/6) Oct 13 2014 As far as I recall, it was an accidental feature of arrays and perhaps
• Don (10/16) Oct 14 2014 It wasn't accidental. It was one of the classic D easter eggs. It
• Walter Bright (2/3) Oct 14 2014 I was threatened with the Comfy Chair. What else could I do?
• Jesse Phillips (5/15) Oct 14 2014 Full support was added in 2.059 Apr 12, 2012
• Steven Schveighoffer (5/25) Oct 14 2014 Yep, I messed up.
• =?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= (9/12) Oct 13 2014 Actually, there are references to D in that article. One of those is
• Christof Schardt (1/9) Oct 13 2014

"Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:

Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

No mention of D though...

"Francesco Cattoglio" <francesco.cattoglio gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 13 October 2014 at 08:53:28 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...


Seriously, not even a mention? Ok, I'm mad. Can I be mad?

"Szymon Gatner" <noemail gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 13 October 2014 at 09:32:58 UTC, Francesco Cattoglio 
wrote:
 On Monday, 13 October 2014 at 08:53:28 UTC, Peter Alexander 
 wrote:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...


 Seriously, not even a mention? Ok, I'm mad. Can I be mad?

To be fair, it is not a new concept in C++...

"Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:

On Monday, 13 October 2014 at 09:32:58 UTC, Francesco Cattoglio 
wrote:
 On Monday, 13 October 2014 at 08:53:28 UTC, Peter Alexander 
 wrote:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...


 Seriously, not even a mention? Ok, I'm mad. Can I be mad?

If you want but from what I recall the idea for UFCS came from an 
article by Scott Meyers where he writes about how he wishes C++ 
had this feature[1].

http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/how-non-member-functions-improve-encapsu/184401197

(haven't read it or the archives in awhile so I may be 
summarizing history incorrectly)

"Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:

On Monday, 13 October 2014 at 08:53:28 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...

After going through most of the CppCon videos during the weekend, 
I am starting to be afraid what C++17 or C++20 might look like.

Even Ada 2012 seems to be simpler to deal with.

--
Paulo

ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:04:05 +0000
Paulo  Pinto via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 I am starting to be afraid what C++17 or C++20 might look like.

a monster praying "keeeel meeeee..." ;-)

"NimrodTheShlomo" <Nim nowhere.il> writes:

On Monday, 13 October 2014 at 08:53:28 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...

UFCS in Pascal

http://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,26025.45.html

"ponce" <contact gam3sfrommars.fr> writes:

On Monday, 13 October 2014 at 08:53:28 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...

UFCS could be fun in C++ with dependence on import order and the 
best-match rule.

ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:14:36 +0000
ponce via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 UFCS could be fun in C++ with dependence on import order and the=20
 best-match rule.

c++ coders love to fight with their tools. ;-)

Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:

Am 13.10.2014 um 10:53 schrieb Peter Alexander:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...

Just noticed that Herb Sutter also presented one,

http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4165.pdf

--
Paulo

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Monday, 13 October 2014 at 17:29:56 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 Am 13.10.2014 um 10:53 schrieb Peter Alexander:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...

 Just noticed that Herb Sutter also presented one,

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4165.pdf

Yes, this was a much better idea than UFCS. Having a syntax that 
supports IDE and tooling could justify having two syntaxes for 
the same thing even though it does pollute the namespace for 
questionable gains.

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 10/13/2014 1:53 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2j3kr4/proposal_for_unified_call_syntax_for_c_xfy_vs_fxy/

and:

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2j3kr4/proposal_for_unified_call_syntax_for_c_xfy_vs_fxy/cl8fil5

Anyone remember just when it appeared in D? (It's not in D1.)

Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On 10/13/14 2:50 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 10/13/2014 1:53 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...

 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2j3kr4/proposal_for_unified_call_syntax_for_c_xfy_vs_fxy/


 and:

 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2j3kr4/proposal_for_unified_call_syntax_for_c_xfy_vs_fxy/cl8fil5


 Anyone remember just when it appeared in D? (It's not in D1.)

The concept is in D1 for arrays since as long as I've ever used D.

I can't see the version exactly that added UFCS, but 2.058 (2011) says:

* Allow 1.userproperty syntax

Which I think is when it was really added.

-Steve

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 10/13/2014 6:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On 10/13/14 2:50 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 10/13/2014 1:53 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...

 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2j3kr4/proposal_for_unified_call_syntax_for_c_xfy_vs_fxy/



 and:

 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2j3kr4/proposal_for_unified_call_syntax_for_c_xfy_vs_fxy/cl8fil5



 Anyone remember just when it appeared in D? (It's not in D1.)

 The concept is in D1 for arrays since as long as I've ever used D.

 I can't see the version exactly that added UFCS, but 2.058 (2011) says:

 * Allow 1.userproperty syntax

 Which I think is when it was really added.

 -Steve

Thanks!

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 14/10/14 03:55, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 The concept is in D1 for arrays since as long as I've ever used D.

As far as I recall, it was an accidental feature of arrays and perhaps 
associative arrays. Might be a bit hard to track down that.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

"Don" <x nospam.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 06:29:01 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 14/10/14 03:55, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 The concept is in D1 for arrays since as long as I've ever 
 used D.

 As far as I recall, it was an accidental feature of arrays and 
 perhaps associative arrays. Might be a bit hard to track down 
 that.

It wasn't accidental. It was one of the classic D easter eggs. It 
was commented in the source, but wasn't documented anywhere or 
mentioned when it was released.
It wasn't documented for at least a year after it was implemented.


BTW the greatest easter egg of them all was the template syntax, 
class Bar(T) {..}
Previously you had to write template(T) { class Bar {} }, someone 
discovered it and then Walter confessed to having done it. Those 
were the days...

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 10/14/2014 3:38 AM, Don wrote:
 and then Walter confessed to having done it.

I was threatened with the Comfy Chair. What else could I do?

"Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 13 October 2014 at 18:50:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 10/13/2014 1:53 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...

 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2j3kr4/proposal_for_unified_call_syntax_for_c_xfy_vs_fxy/

 and:

 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2j3kr4/proposal_for_unified_call_syntax_for_c_xfy_vs_fxy/cl8fil5

 Anyone remember just when it appeared in D? (It's not in D1.)

Full support was added in 2.059 Apr 12, 2012

http://dlang.org/changelog.html
Bugzilla 3382: [tdpl] Implement uniform function call syntax

But it has worked on arrays for much longer.

Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On 10/14/14 11:34 AM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
 On Monday, 13 October 2014 at 18:50:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 10/13/2014 1:53 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...

 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2j3kr4/proposal_for_unified_call_syntax_for_c_xfy_vs_fxy/


 and:

 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2j3kr4/proposal_for_unified_call_syntax_for_c_xfy_vs_fxy/cl8fil5


 Anyone remember just when it appeared in D? (It's not in D1.)

 Full support was added in 2.059 Apr 12, 2012

 http://dlang.org/changelog.html
 Bugzilla 3382: [tdpl] Implement uniform function call syntax

Yep, I messed up.

The "Allow 1.property syntax" was just a precursor to UFCS that 
disallowed 1.f syntax.

-Steve

=?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

On 10/13/2014 01:53 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
 Looks like Bjarne has proposed UFCS for C++

 http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4174.pdf

 No mention of D though...

Actually, there are references to D in that article. One of those is 
even about considering D as an "alternative". An excerpt from page 10:

void alternative(D& d)    // an alternative to consider
{
     // ...
}

Ali
"I am NOT kidding!" :)

"Christof Schardt" <Christof Schardt.info> writes:

:-)    Ali, you made my day!

 Actually, there are references to D in that article. One of those is 
 even about considering D as an "alternative". An excerpt from page 10:
 
 void alternative(D& d)    // an alternative to consider
 {
     // ...
 }