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:

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?

On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 23:59:06 UTC, Antonio 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.

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

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

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 05:17:20 UTC, Tejas wrote:

Probably not.

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 05:17:20 UTC, Tejas wrote:

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

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

Lets tray with a name :-)

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

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 :-)

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 12:26:05 UTC, Antonio wrote:

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