However, such a cleanup still seems possible, it just takes long enough, and the alternative is ranges.

On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 1:06 PM blacktea hamburger <greenteahamburger@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks! You can see this as a joke now:

So the standard library needs a cleanup, hopefully someone will push it forward when the UFCS arrives.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:12 PM Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 9:33 AM blacktea hamburger via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks. So can you explain why other languages (like D) have UFCS? How do they solve these problems? Or do they simply not care about them?

Since we're talking about "large-scale programs", is D a language that
should be discussed in that context?

Note that Ville specifically pointed to a change from one thing to
another. If it had always been the other thing from the start, then
you could argue that UFCS is fine, because there is no existing code
that had different expectations. But that's not C++.

You cannot treat an existing language with literally billions of lines
of code like a playground/testbed upon which you can make whatever
changes you want. Changes like UFCS which change *fundamental
assumptions* upon which various code was written is... complicated.
Even if what you're changing it to is manageable, it's still forcing a
new set of base assumptions upon code that was never written to handle
those assumptions.
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals