Possible UDA bug

[jerro]

> Why the fist is wrong? It is a call expression which is
> acceptable according to the UDA grammar.

I'm not saying the syntax in the first example is, or should be, 
invalid.

> The reason the second
> does not compile is because the statement is evaluated at CT, 
> and
> interpreter cannot evaluate call without source, like a regular
> explicit call.

I know that, the thing is that it will give this error every time 
you try to use the attributes of foo (or am I missing some use 
case?). So I think it would be better if the declaration in the 
first example would be illegal, since it doesn't really make any 
sense and is useless.