2013/2/27 Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> > 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. 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.
I agree with Jonathan. DIP27 is a recurrence of C's mistake. It would remove a language future, and breaking much existing code, and then introduces nothing. Certainly compiler implementation may be simplified a little by doing it, however it is too small benefit than the D world destruction. Kenji Hara
