Functional programming in D and some reflexion on the () optionality.

[Timon Gehr]

On 08/06/2012 09:42 PM, Christophe Travert wrote:
> Timon Gehr , dans le message (digitalmars.D:174329), a écrit :
>> On 08/06/2012 07:20 PM, Christophe Travert wrote:
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> Creating byzantine language rules to cater to unimportant or
>> non-existent use cases will slaughter the language.
>
> What exactly do you consider byzantine here, whatever that means?

byzantine means involved. Why deliberately make the language more
complicated for no gain whatsoever?

> Implicit cast is an already defined feature. Clarifying the way
> parenthesis-less function calls exist by adding a casting rule is making
> the langage more simple IMHO,

I don't know what to respond to this. Are you serious?

> and might improve the current position. Of
> course, if your point is that parenthesis-less function calls are
> unimportant or non-existent,

It isn't. My point is that there actually is no issue that would
require some complex solution.

> then I understand your point of view, but other people seems to think differently.
>