Rant after trying Rust a bit

[Tofu Ninja via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 21:29:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 20:46:07 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>> Is omitting the () not part of ufcs? Or does it have some 
>> other name, I can never remember.
>
> No. That's simply omitting the parens from a function call that 
> has no arguments. If it has a name, it's just "optional 
> parens." Universal Function Call Syntax is the syntax that 
> allows you to call a free function as if it were a member 
> function, which is why stuff like
>
> auto result = myRange.find(bar);
>
> works. It _does_ mean that you can drop even more parens, 
> because the first function argument is now to the left of the 
> dot, and the parens are then empty if there was only one 
> function argument, but being able to drop the parens has 
> nothing to do with UFCS. We could still have UFCS and yet never 
> be able to drop parens.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Ok I kinda assumed they were both included in the concept of 
UFCS, just replace "UFCS" in what I said before with "optional 
parens". Basicly I was just saying that I suppose optional parens 
do not really make sense on function pointers. Aka if "a" is a 
function pointer then auto b = a; should type "b" to a function 
pointer as well, which is how it currently works, afik.

But the part that I don't think makes sense for

      auto a = {return 4;};

to type "a" to a function pointer. I would expect {return 4;} to 
be treated as a function(not a function pointer). With it being 
treated as a function, I would expect it to be called with 
optional parens and type "a" to an int. I would expect auto

       a = &{return 4;};

to type "a" to a function pointer, which makes much more sense to 
me. But that's not how function literals work right now. Treating 
{return 4;} as a function(not a function pointer) makes a lot 
more sense and allows

      alias a = {return 4;};

to work as well, which is simply a function declaration.