On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 20:42:57 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/26/2013 06:09 PM, Dicebot wrote:
I like overall approach and think it really should be rule of
a thumb
for designing D features - defining simple bullet-proof
semantics and
making conclusions from it.
As opposed to syntax-based special case coverage.
...
Like it or not, that is what a compiler does.
What I do find lacking in this DIP:
1) "Optional parentheses" part needs detailed description why
exactly
those cases have special handling and how are they different
from
others. ...
That part needs a complete overhaul. It is way too complex
given the goal the DIP pursuits.
I have to say I'm not a big fan of it. But several people really
seems to enjoy the ability to call function without (), so I went
through some codebase to see where it is used most and figured
out when it does not conflict with something else.
I guess it breaks most projects out there.
I guess any changes to the way you call function is going to
break a fair amount of code. This is the most basic feature. This
is also why you really need to get it straightforward and simple.
