Something that could “help” improve some scenarios...

# language-proposals

[samuel]

Something that could “help” improve some scenarios using DSL would be to possibly infer the receiver for infix function when the receiver is “directly” available, for example:

class SomeClass() {
    infix fun SomeClass.someFunction (someParam: SomeType) {
        // some code
    }
}

fun inSomeClass(action: SomeClass.() -> Unit) {
    SomeClass().action()
}

inSomeClass { 
    this someFunction "param"
    someFunction "param" // Receiver could possibly implied
}

[louiscad]

A less confusing approach already exists: someFunction(param) works, even if the function has the infix modifier.

I'm wondering about the implications of having this "prefix" syntax and the impact on code readability and correctness.

[samuel]

In a DSL context, i could imagine being able to skip this would be nice to have. I think it would be similar to the way we can use extensions without explicitly specifying the receiver this for example:

someInstance.apply{
      someExtension("someParam")
      this.someExtension("someParam")
}

Given that the receiver is unambiguous in this case, i would think it would not have much of a negative impact imho