On 2/26/13 10:33 PM, kenji hara wrote:
2013/2/27 Jonathan M Davis <[email protected] <mailto:[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
Agreed. I think it's safe to close it. Andrei
