DIP27 available for destruction

[Timon Gehr]

On 02/26/2013 10:01 PM, 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",

Ugh. Should be "UFCS 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.