DIP27 available for destruction

[Timon Gehr]

On 02/26/2013 05:16 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> ...
> As usual, destroy, I don't expect to get unanimity on that. But I tried
> very hard to get most benefit of actual situation, including the
> possibility of optional parentheses in some situations (even if I'm not
> the biggest fan of it, I recognize that they are nice).

If breaking code is an option, this is almost fine.

Change the optional parens part to "optional parentheses are valid for 
CTFE calls", and you might have me on board. It is also simpler, less 
ad-hoc, and easier to implement than what the DIP currently states.