"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:isjhv6$309k$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.vwn4enw5eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>> Someone wrote a very compelling argument for ufcs (uniform function call syntax) for ranges, and that is, given a slew of range functions, and a slew of ranges, it is nice to use a fluent programming syntax to specify wrappers for ranges without having to extend each range type.  For example:
>>
>> take(10,stride(2,cycle([3,2,5,3])));
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> [3,2,5,3].cycle().stride(2).take(10);
>>
>> And I thought damn it would be nice if ranges could implement ufcs, but other types that you didn't want to allow infinite extendability could avoid it.  That gave me an idea :)
>>
>>
>
> I just hope it doesn't cause real ufcs to become an even lower priority than it already is.
>

Sorry for the partial top-posting...