On 02/26/2013 10:01 PM, 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",
Ugh. Should be "UFCS 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.
