{.experimental: "dotOperators".} not needed for template .(a, b), violating spec

[timotheecour]

spec says {.experimental: "dotOperators".} is needed for dot operators, regardless of template vs macro.
current implementation differs, allowing template without {.experimental: "dotOperators".} (but agrees for macro)

Example

template `.`*(a, b: float) = echo "ok1"
{.push experimental: "dotOperators".}
macro `.`*(a, b: int) = echo "ok2"
{.pop.}

Current Output

compiles

Expected Output

Error: the overloaded . operator has to be enabled with {.experimental: "dotOperators".}

Additional Information

• recent devel 0ecb709
• see wrapnils: allows optional chaining of field access and indexing when LHS i snil #13023 (comment)
• changing the implementation to match spec may break existing code; maybe not too bad since the fix is not hard (either changing sources to add {.push experimental: "dotOperators".} .. {.pop.} if user can, or passing --experimental:dotOperators on cmdline

[metagn]

Same for callOperator. A big problem is these templates do actually work without experimental switch.

template `()`(a, b) = discard a + b

1(3)

Compiles. Same for push experimental/pop:

import macros

{.push experimental: "callOperator".}

macro `()`(a, b): untyped =
  result = infix(a, "+", b)

{.pop.}

echo 1(3)