Ivan Senji wrote:

>
>The D-way of dealing with be to define a simple rule: either report
>that the code is ambigous or define a simple rule for example,
>a.f() first look for f() in a, and then if not found look for f(a).
>
>But thinking a little bit more about this i agree with you that it
>would be good if this worked for non-struct and non-class types.
>
>Although it could be useful sometimes with classes also :)
>  
>
I'd bet a lot of people want this enabled for class (and primitives) operators.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/