On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 02:18:08 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
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 su<ch strange behavior could be explained in a
way that is coherent with the rest of the language.
As another data point, Walter wrote a while ago himself: »I'm
just arguing against the e and (e) solution as (perhaps) causing
more ambiguity problems«.
David
