DIP27 available for destruction

[deadalnix]

On Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 05:34:44 UTC, kenji hara wrote:
> 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.
>

That is false. In C, function pointers are done as follow :
void foo() {
     printf("foo");
}

void (*functionPtr)(); // equivalent to D void function() 
functionPtr;
functionPtr = &foo; // Note the presence of & operator.

functionPtr(); // Call foo

This is why I don't understand the point the 3 of you are trying 
to make. Current behavior of D is much more close to C than what 
the DIP proposes.

This behavior is very specific to C and C++. If C's behavior was 
a mistake, then it an argument FOR this DIP, not against.

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

D behave very much like C on that regard, so I don't really see 
how this can be true.

> 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.
>

No, DIP27 is only about functions. It says nothing about 
properties. It add stable foundation we can build upon.