Why are opCall's not implicitely assignable?

[Karen Lanrap]

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> It's distinguishable at the moment by whether the lvalue is a
> variable or a function.
> 
> Trying to add a further dependence on the type of the rvalue
> would make the language more complicated and possibly harder to
> understand. 

This harder understanding is introduced by the existing syntax sugar 
already.

You explain it yourself: reading any "x=y;" one has to know whether 
"x" is a variable or a function because of that syntax sugar.

But
1. what is the difference between a variable and a function?
2. why should one stop introducing further dependencies?


Number 1 may sound silly, but Walter has introduced the assignment to 
functions as means of a call---and thereby diluted the differences 
between both concepts.

In fact "real r='\n';" is already a dilution of what a variable is by 
means of implicit conversion.


Number 2 is only driving the properties of implicite conversions 
further into the control of the user.

"real r='\n';" could very well, and with an apropriate function f, be 
replaced by "real r=f('\n');" and this with the short hand to "real 
r=f='\n';"