On 07/15/2012 11:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 23:47:58 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/15/2012 11:43 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 23:35:12 Timon Gehr wrote:
The second level - i.e. strict property enforcement - also requires that
non- property functions be called as functions.
Exactly. This part is useless.
And there, we will forever disagree.
If it is a matter of personal preference, then it shouldn't be in the
compiler.
It's a matter of enforcing the correct syntax,
This post seems to attempt to distract from the fact that the topic of
the discussion is which syntax is correct.
which the compiler does all the
time. It's just that you don't think that the compiler should care in this
particular case, since it hasn't cared in the past.
The compiler does not and has never 'not cared'. It has to do slightly
more work. This is a designed language feature, although it's a trivial
one. eg. Eiffel and Scala have the same thing.
The prime reason why I think it is beneficial if no more restrictions
than necessary are applied is UFCS:
array(map!(x=>2*x)(range)); // should be fine
range.map!(x=>2*x).array; // so should this
range.map!(x=>2*x)().array(); // who needs this?
