On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 01:30:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I think most, if not all, detailed rules derive from these.
One does not, the strange special case for taking the address of
a property.
I'd REALLY urge you to explore alternative solutions, such as the
one proposed by Andrej, before introducing an abomination like
distinguishing between "&a" and "&(a)".
There is no way such strange behavior could be explained in a way
that is coherent with the rest of the language.
I found that when you are working on a complex problem and have a
solution that seems to work for everything except a little
detail, the best approach often is to step back a bit and have an
entirely fresh look at that area again, but now taking the rest
of your design as a given.
Introducing a rule by which parenthesizing an expression in a way
that does not change precedence suddenly causes a difference in
behavior certainly wouldn't be among the first ideas coming to my
mind this way.
David
