DIP26 reworked

[Robert]

> I'm sorry this is reversed logic. You introduce limitation (IE no 
> UFCS setter for instance) it is up to you to justify the tradeoff.

I thought I did, if you disagree I think it is not too much to ask why?
I surely might have missed really good use cases, that is why I want to
discuss it, so if you have one, please tell me.

> For instance 
> typeof(a) == int and typeof(&a) == function is really bad. Plus 
> it cascade into all kind of possible weird cases. What about 
> ternary operator ? Coma expressions ?

I in fact forgot about those issues, I will check them out. Thanks!

Although this critique does not really apply to DIP26, but rather DIP23
(they still need to be resolved as DIP26 builds on the concept of
optional parentheses of DIP23) but I would like to know what is bad
about the things DIP26 introduces and most importantly why.

Thanks again for constructive feedback.