On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 06:34:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 1/24/13 1:18 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 23:39:50 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
We need a good DIP on this. UFCS has destroyed all arguments
in favor
of requiring parens. There is no question we must do this.
Anyone
inclined toward writing a detailed DIP?
Andrei
What about optional parens on non-UFCS calls, is there a case
for this?
Honest question.
Let them be.
I'm inclined to writing a DIP.
That would be great!
Andrei
We actually have one, which I think I agree with:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP21
The gist of the DIP is that something marked with @property is
always and immediately expanded into a call.
This fits into my proposal of:
1) properties never have parens (they are added by the compiler)
2) You can't take the address of a property function: "&foo"
would become "&foo()", so you'd always get the address of the
return value.
- make parens optional for everything else.
- allow the "foo = 5" rewrite into "foo(5)" only for properties.
-- Note that if foo is a non-property that returns by ref, then
"foo = 5" remains legal
-- However, "writeln = 5" would be illegal.
I think properties is a really cool & powerful concept. It got
conflated into "optional parens". This doesn't mean we should
just "take it out back"...
