https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=277

Vlad Levenfeld <vlevenfeld@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |vlevenfeld@gmail.com

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=277

RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #4 from RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Jason O'Brien from comment #3)
> thanks for the workaround Bruno, though I'm afraid that would still be subject to the problems with operator resolution in my comment :(  Works great if you've only got one mixin however :)
> 
> As far as it being an enhancement, I can see your judgement there.  But I would still think the second issue is a bug, as it's simply ignoring the mixin name, which doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

It is not ignoring the name; it is basically trying to do += on an object (the named mixin) that has void type. The named mixin is like a gateway to select the proper method, not an object on which operator overloading can be applied. The name for the mixin has the purpose of being explicitly used when you want to disambiguate, not to be used as an aggregate declaration; changing this may lead to surprising behavior.

Closing as invalid.

--