On Sunday, 21 January 2024 at 13:18:07 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:

I'm talking about that:

struct B
{
    int i;
}

struct A
{
    B b;
    alias cmp = (b.i == 0);
}

void main()
{
    A a;
    if (a.cmp) {} // a.(b.i == 0)
                  // but user wants (a.b.i) == 0
}

You cant just rewrite them as DotExp otherwise operands are not evaluated properly, or like in the example, invalid expressions are generated.

On Sunday, 21 January 2024 at 15:03:15 UTC, Basile B. wrote:

struct B
{
    int i;
}

struct A
{
    B b;
    alias cmp = (b.i == 0);
}

void main()
{
    A a;
    if (a.cmp) {} // a.(b.i == 0)
                  // but user wants (a.b.i) == 0
}

if (a.(b.i == 0)) is actually syntactically correct in Neat and will result in the same outcome. :-)

But I think you're still looking at it at too high a level. a.cmp is not rewritten as a.(b.i == 0), rather syntactically it stays as a.cmp, and the lookup for "cmp" results in the evaluation of (b.i == 0), or (this.b.i == 0), in the context of thisptr = &a. It's not a term rewriting system.

On Sunday, 21 January 2024 at 19:45:03 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:

struct B
{
    int i;
}

struct A
{
    B b;
    alias cmp = (b.i == 0);
}

void main()
{
    A a;
    if (a.cmp) {} // a.(b.i == 0)
                  // but user wants (a.b.i) == 0
}

I see, you handle the context more like it would be a with-stmt. I tend to forgot that not all compilers are not designed like DMD, to conclude on this off topic ;)