Is the address-of operator (&) really needed?

[Sandeep Datta]

> But the only reason any of this is happening at all is
> because of a specific ambiguity that was discovered with the 
> old "empty
> parens are optional" approach.

Hmm interesting (esp since it works out in favor of what I wanted 
:) ) but TBH I do not have a problem with leaving the parens out 
if it does not meddle with the way I'd prefer to use the 
language. But it seems you can't have the cake and eat it too.

Having said that, what is your opinion on dropping the ampersand? 
To me it looks antiquated and out of place especially since it 
conjures up images of unsafe pointers in C/C++.