DIP27 available for destruction

[deadalnix]

On Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 10:41:01 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> 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".
>

Oh ! That make much more sense :D

Yes, UFCS is a nice use case for optional (). The actual proposal 
allow for chained UFCS calls, except the last one. Which is 
already a big win.