Why are opCall's not implicitely assignable?

[Stewart Gordon]

Karen Lanrap wrote:
> 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.
<snip>

Not if one is interested primarily in what it does, rather than how it 
does it.  Which is the whole point of properties.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.