DIP27 available for destruction

[Timon Gehr]

On 02/27/2013 03:30 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 21:01:04 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Can you elaborate on that ? I'm not 100M satisfied with that part of the
> DIP, where I see everything else as a major improvement over current
> situation.

I'm not sure why elaboration would be necessary.
Remove the optional parens part, then:

int foo(int x){ ... }

2.foo // <- no meaning assigned by your DIP, make it a function call