DIP27 available for destruction

[deadalnix]

On Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 06:15:29 UTC, dennis luehring 
wrote:
> Am 27.02.2013 06:54, schrieb deadalnix:
>>> 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.
>
> void (*functionPtr)();
>
> //both are valid and working in C
> functionPtr xyz = &foo;
> functionPtr zxy = foo; //<- this is solved in D

I don't think D solved that. Only partially. Both are conflated 
here for instance :

void foo() {}
foo(); <=> (&foo)();

Is another presentation of the same conflation.

The DIP propose to effectively solve that by removing completely 
the entity represented by foo in &foo . You can't have conflation 
with something that do not exists.