UFCS and constructors

[monarch_dodra]

On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 14:53:56 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 03:22:16 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
> wrote:
>> That is _very_ broken IMHO. It makes no sense for parens to be 
>> optional with
>> opCall. The whole point of opCall is to overload the parens!
>
> So much about optional parenthesis is broken. I really wish 
> things weren't going that way, it obfusticates the difference 
> between a callable and the result in a really nasty way, and it 
> doesn't work for function pointers (nor does UFCS 
> unfortunately).

While I agree with you, I think that discussion is passed. I 
don't think anybody wants to resurect it (IMO).