Steve Yegge's rant on The Next Big Language

[Sean Kelly]

Frits van Bommel wrote:
>
> I just thought of a semi-ambiguity. If the return type and the types of 
> any parameters are user-defined, and all parameters (if any) are 
> anonymous and implicitly 'in', the first part looks just like a function 
> call: "foo(bar)" can then be either a call to a function 'foo' with 
> parameter 'bar', or the start of a delegate returning a value of type 
> 'foo' taking an anonymous parameter of type 'bar'.

It could also look like an object instantiation via static opCall 
followed by a nested block of code.  Excluding the separating semicolon, 
of course.

> But since IIRC D already requires an infinite-lookahead parser, the next 
> character (either a '{' or not) should disambiguate, which is why I only 
> called this a semi-ambiguity.

Yup.

> Can anyone think of an actual ambiguity, or think of another reason this 
> is not allowed? Barring fault, oversight or laziness (or perhaps just 
> busy-ness) on Walter's part, of course :P.

I think the presence or lack of a semicolon keeps this from being a true 
ambiguity.