hm, that makes sense. Unfortunately since the "ins...

# random

[kevinmost]

hm, that makes sense. Unfortunately since the "instance" type is Nothing? it becomes impossible to write a delegate that:

- implements an interface that defines the contract for the operator fun, AND
- works on both a property level and a top/local level

even if your delegate doesn't need the "instance" value in question to function properly, is that right?