As someone who is trying out Nim, my understanding of Nim's syntax is that it is incredibly flexible given that in this thread, many have already pointed out multiple ways to convert a type (and for that matter call a procedure/method/function), it wouldn't be far fetched for someone like me to assume that the syntax is flexible enough to be conform to existing habits of similar languages (or underlying languages that Nim compiles down to). The fact that Nim in itself borrows many of it's features and syntax styles from various languages, I don't see why having this assumption is so objectionable.
I have already said that I will keep this in mind going forward, and various users have already pointed out to me a technical reason as to why it would be bad practice, and I accept that. I'd like to point out though, for a growing community like Nim's, it is in my opinion that some unhelpful comments within this thread don't help adoption by new users.
