On Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 10:41:01 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
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".
Oh ! That make much more sense :D
Yes, UFCS is a nice use case for optional (). The actual proposal
allow for chained UFCS calls, except the last one. Which is
already a big win.
