Support accessing relevant member functions on a wider variety of types

[alex-frankel]

The example from the discussion below is for string types, but could be expanded for more:

var length = myArray.length()
var doesContainFoo = myObject.contains('foo')
...

Discussed in #4429

^{Originally posted by CShen-RACI September 13, 2021}
Just my 2 cents, do you guys think it will be better to use program language way to call the function? For example to convert string to upper case, which way is better

upper(rgName)

or
rgName.Upper()

[majastrz]

I like this quite a bit because it reduces nesting and is much easier to write and reason about:

// contrived example with method syntax
myString.toUpper().toLower().length()

// current syntax
length(toLower(toUpper(myString)))

[anthony-c-martin]

+1, I like this too.

We'll need to think about what the behavior around completions and validations should look like for the any type, and for invalid types.

[alex-frankel]

Should behave like C# extension methods

[anthony-c-martin]

I discovered this feature has a name! UFCS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Function_Call_Syntax