Lazy eval -- an example issue

[kris]

Walter Bright wrote:
> kris wrote:
> 
>> Can't do that; the char[] version have to stay.
> 
> 
> Why?

Further, I had to remove the very useful delegate() overload that was 
added using dmd164, since dmd165 just had a fit about ambiguous 
arguments. So much for backward compatability :/

I don't know where you get your claim about people not willing to use 
"{}" but, judging by the response around here, it has no truth behind it 
whatsoever. Perhaps you'll honour us with some background on that?

I remember when you asked folks here if it would be ok to change the 
cast() syntax way back when, to remove that minor ambiguity. Now you're 
using a suspect and pithy "{}" assertion to deliberately break what is 
otherwise an unambiguous syntax. And you don't ask or care whether 
anyone would actually mind the ensuing chaos. Whatever you've been 
smoking, Walter, I'd like to try some of it ~ please pass it around

Cheers;