• Antonio (33/33) Jun 16 2022 ```d
• Paul Backus (5/7) Jun 16 2022 Nope. The way UFCS works is that allows you to call free
• Tejas (3/7) Jun 16 2022 Would it be worthwhile to extend the scope of UFCS to accomodate
• Paul Backus (2/10) Jun 16 2022 Probably not.
• bauss (2/10) Jun 16 2022 I think it would lead to a lot of confusing and ambiguity.
• Antonio (45/52) Jun 17 2022 Lets tray with a name :-)
• Antonio (2/3) Jun 17 2022 **UFCS & CFTE** vs **Functional currying**... nice battle :-)

Antonio <antonio abrevia.net> writes:

```d
auto doSomething(string text)
{
   return (string text2)
   {
     import std.stdio;
     writeln(text,",",text2);
   };
}

void main()
{
   doSomething("Hello")("X");
   "X".doSomething("Hello")();
}
```
Compiler error:

```
...
onlineapp.d(13):        expected 1 argument(s), not 2
```

I tried with some syntax change:

```d
void main()
{
   doSomething("Hello")("X");
   (doSomething("Hello"))("X"); // it works
   "X".(doSomething("Hello"))(); // fails!!!
}
```

```onlineapp.d(14): Error: identifier or `new` expected following 
`.`, not `(````

Is it there any way to apply UFCS on the returned method in the 
same expression?

Paul Backus <snarwin gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 23:59:06 UTC, Antonio wrote:
 Is it there any way to apply UFCS on the returned method in the 
 same expression?

Nope. The way UFCS works is that allows you to call free 
functions using member-function syntax, and member-function 
syntax is always `object.memberName`, so UFCS only works for 
functions that have a name, not anonymous functions.

Tejas <notrealemail gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 01:04:28 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:

 Nope. The way UFCS works is that allows you to call free 
 functions using member-function syntax, and member-function 
 syntax is always `object.memberName`, so UFCS only works for 
 functions that have a name, not anonymous functions.

Would it be worthwhile to extend the scope of UFCS to accomodate 
this use case as well though??

Paul Backus <snarwin gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 05:17:20 UTC, Tejas wrote:
 On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 01:04:28 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:

 Nope. The way UFCS works is that allows you to call free 
 functions using member-function syntax, and member-function 
 syntax is always `object.memberName`, so UFCS only works for 
 functions that have a name, not anonymous functions.

 Would it be worthwhile to extend the scope of UFCS to 
 accomodate this use case as well though??

Probably not.

bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 05:17:20 UTC, Tejas wrote:
 On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 01:04:28 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:

 Nope. The way UFCS works is that allows you to call free 
 functions using member-function syntax, and member-function 
 syntax is always `object.memberName`, so UFCS only works for 
 functions that have a name, not anonymous functions.

 Would it be worthwhile to extend the scope of UFCS to 
 accomodate this use case as well though??

I think it would lead to a lot of confusing and ambiguity.

Antonio <antonio abrevia.net> writes:

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 01:04:28 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
 On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 23:59:06 UTC, Antonio wrote:
 Is it there any way to apply UFCS on the returned method in 
 the same expression?

 Nope. The way UFCS works is that allows you to call free 
 functions using member-function syntax, and member-function 
 syntax is always `object.memberName`, so UFCS only works for 
 functions that have a name, not anonymous functions.

Lets tray with a name :-)

```d
auto doSomething(string text)
{
   return (string text2)
   {
     import std.stdio;
     writeln(text,",",text2);
   };
}

void main()
{
   auto doHello = doSomething("Hello");
   doHello("X");
   "X".doHello();
}
```

Error:  onlineapp.d(16): Error: no property `doHello` for type 
`string`

It's true... the favomous "Rationale: Local function symbols are 
not considered by UFCS to avoid unexpected name conflicts."  (I 
consider it absurd... but I'n no-one)

Well lets try another possibility taking in account the power of 
CTFE

```d
auto doSomething(string text)
{
   return (string text2)
   {
     import std.stdio;
     writeln(text,",",text2);
   };
}

auto doHello = doSomething("Hello");

void main()
{
   doHello("X");
   "X".doHello();
}

```

Error: onlineapp.d(3): Error: closures are not yet supported in 
CTFE

:-/

UFCS vs Functional curring... nice battle :-)

Antonio <antonio abrevia.net> writes:

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 12:26:05 UTC, Antonio wrote:
 UFCS vs Functional curring... nice battle :-)

**UFCS & CFTE** vs **Functional currying**... nice battle :-)