DIP27 available for destruction

[kenji hara]

2013/2/27 deadalnix <deadalnix at gmail.com>
>
> On Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 03:46:44 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> On 2/26/13 10:33 PM, kenji hara wrote:
>>>
>>> 2013/2/27 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com
>>> <mailto:jmdavisProg at gmx.com>>
>>>
>>>    I believe that both Walter and Andrei have said on multiple
>>>    occasions that one
>>>    of C's big mistakes was conflating function names with their
>>>    addresses, and
>>>    this DIP appears to be trying to do exactly that. And I honestly
>>>    don't see
>>>    what it buys us. It just makes the situation with parenless function
>>>    calls
>>>    worse. At least right now, it's clear when you're dealing with a
>>>    function
>>>    pointer or a parenless function call. With this DIP, it wouldn't be.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Jonathan. DIP27 is a recurrence of C's mistake.
>>> It would remove a language future, and breaking much existing code, and
>>> then introduces nothing. Certainly compiler implementation may be
>>> simplified a little by doing it, however it is too small benefit than
>>> the D world destruction.
>>>
>>> Kenji Hara
>>
>>
>> Agreed. I think it's safe to close it.
>>
>> Andrei
>
>
> Andrei, Kenji and Jonathan, can you explain what error of C did this DIP
reproduce and why it is an error ?

The mistake in C is mixing of function name and function address.
At least there is one ambiguity which appearance and meaning does not
correspond one-to-one.

In current D, the ambiguity is _already_ resolved - if you want to function
address, use & operator.

As far as I see, DIP27 will overturn the chess board, remove property
feature, change the meaning of 'foo', deprecate '&foo', and finally add
nothing for the language users.

Kenji Hara
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20130227/dc4fb49c/attachment.html>