DIP 1043---Shortened Method Syntax---Accepted

[Dukc]

On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker 
wrote:
> DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax", has been accepted.

Excellent!

>
> The fact that the feature was already implemented behind a 
> preview switch carried weight with Atila. He noted that, if not 
> for that, he wasn't sure where he would stand on adding the 
> feature, but he could see no reason to reject it now.

If there is no reason to reject an already-implemented feature, 
there's no reason to to reject it as non-implemented either.

If it feels like it's too much work to implement an otherwise 
good DIP, it should be accepted on the condition that someone 
does it, not rejected IMO.

Even if the maintainers don't have time to implement something 
themselves, it still lowers the bar a lot for someone else to do 
it when there is a promise to accept any sound implementation.

> Walter accepted with a suggested (not a required) enhancement:
>
>> It could be even shorter. For functions with no arguments, the 
>> () could be
> omitted, because the => token will still make it unambiguous.
>>
> As DIP author, Max decided against this. He said it's not a bad 
> idea, but it's then "inconsistent with other the other 
> syntaxes". If there is a demand for this, it would be easy to 
> add later, but he felt it's better to keep things simple for 
> now by going with the current implementation as is.

Good reasoning from Max.