On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 21:01:04 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/26/2013 05:16 PM, deadalnix wrote:
...
As usual, destroy, I don't expect to get unanimity on that.
But I tried
very hard to get most benefit of actual situation, including
the
possibility of optional parentheses in some situations (even
if I'm not
the biggest fan of it, I recognize that they are nice).
If breaking code is an option, this is almost fine.
Change the optional parens part to "optional parentheses are
valid for CTFE calls", and you might have me on board. It is
also simpler, less ad-hoc, and easier to implement than what
the DIP currently states.
Can you elaborate on that ? I'm not 100M satisfied with that part
of the DIP, where I see everything else as a major improvement
over current situation.
