DIP27 available for destruction

[Timon Gehr]

On 02/26/2013 06:09 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> I like overall approach and think it really should be rule of a thumb
> for designing D features - defining simple bullet-proof semantics and
> making conclusions from it.
> As opposed to syntax-based special case coverage.
> ...

Like it or not, that is what a compiler does.

> What I do find lacking in this DIP:
>
> 1) "Optional parentheses" part needs detailed description why exactly
> those cases have special handling and how are they different from
> others. ...
>

That part needs a complete overhaul. It is way too complex given the 
goal the DIP pursuits.

> 2) If you want to prohibit functions having an address, you need a
> section explaining communication with C in details in regard to passing
> function pointers.
>

That actually wouldn't change.

> 3) It really needs a broad overview of semantic changes in common use
> cases and code breakage list.

I guess it breaks most projects out there.