Revised RFC on range design for D2 (lazy)

[Bruno Medeiros]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> Hold it right there! Are you saying that the existence of 'lazy' 
>> somehow required, or helped justify the existence of the omittable 
>> parenthesis functionality? How is that?
>> I think you are accusing innocents ('lazy') or wrongdoing. 'lazy' has 
>> nothing to do with the omittable parenthesis functionality, I think 
>> they are completely orthogonal. Prove me wrong otherwise.
> 
> The connection is indirect. Lazy showed that omitting trailing parens 
> after delegate names is not recommended. If trailing parens after 
> delegate names were required, much of the ambiguity mentioned by Sergey 
> would disappear.
> 
> Andrei

So your point before was, that you are criticizing lazy because it 
shows/recommends that trailing parenthesis are not ommited?
Then you realize that such is only considered a disadvantage to those 
that think trailing parenthesis should be omitted in the first place...

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D