On Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 03:46:44 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
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
Andrei, Kenji and Jonathan, can you explain what error of C did
this DIP reproduce and why it is an error ?
