On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 20:00:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Wouldn't this fall apart completely with auto or IFTI (implicit
funtion
template instantiation)? For instance take
auto foo(T)(T blah) {...}
int func() { return 7; }
void bar()
{
...
foo(func); //Does this call func or pass its address?
auto f = func; //Does this call func or take its address?
...
}
Both are the function. None is listed in the implicit call cases.
Are you sure we are talking about the same DIP ?
I believe that both Walter and Andrei have said on multiple
occasions that one
of C's big mistakes was conflating function names with their
addresses, and
this DIP appears to be trying to do exactly that.
That is not how C works. In C, the function name represent the
actual instruction f the function (and this is why taking the
address of the function gives you a function pointer). This
mechanics is reproduced in D but has no real use case (even if it
is around for more than 40 years) and add complexity.
The DIP proposes something close to what exists in C# and
Javascript.
And I honestly don't see
what it buys us. It just makes the situation with parenless
function calls
worse. At least right now, it's clear when you're dealing with
a function
pointer or a parenless function call. With this DIP, it
wouldn't be.
Considering that both statement above are wrong, I think you
should reconsider that conclusion.
