shouting versus dotting

[Benji Smith]

Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:27:00 +0200, Benji Smith 
> <dlanguage at benjismith.net> wrote:
> 
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Denis Koroskin <2korden at gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If we don't omit parenthesises, the ambiguity goes away:
>>>>
>>>> foo()(5)
>>>> foo(5)()
>>>>
>>>  No it doesn't.
>>>  Stdout("foo")("bar!").newline;
>>
>> This is one of the main reasons I dislike opCall.
>>
>> Combined with optional-parentheses for function invocation, opCall is 
>> a poison-pill that creates a lot of potential ambiguities and prevents 
>> the implementation of more compelling features.
>>
>> --benji
> 
> void delegate() foo()
> {
>     return delegate void() {);};
> }
> 
> ?
> 

Is that supposed to be legal code?

I'll assume this is what you meant to write:

    void delegate() foo()
    {
       return delegate void() { };
    }

...and that you're making the point that opCall introduces no more 
ambiguities than delegate-call syntax. And I suppose you're right.

But people use opCall *everywhere* for all sorts of crazy crap, and I 
think it makes the code far less readable. When the call syntax is used 
for actual delegates, I don't really mind. But I think call-chaining 
with opCall is a huge eye-sore:

    object(x)("hello")();

I guess my ambiguity argument is invalidated by wanting to keep the 
delegate-call syntax. I just hate when it's applied to non-delegates.

--benji