shouting versus dotting

[KennyTM~]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> KennyTM~ wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Michel Fortin wrote:
>>>> On 2008-10-05 01:14:17 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu 
>>>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
>>>>
>>>> -- snip --
>>>>
>>>> Or we could use special delimiter characters:
>>>>
>>>>     Positive<real>(joke);
>>>>     Positive“real”(joke);
>>>>     Positive«real»(joke);
>>>>     Positive#real@(joke);
>>>>
>>>> Each having its own problem though.
>>>>
>>>> My preference still goes to "!(".
>>>
>>> There was also Positive{real}(joke), with which I couldn't find an 
>>> ambiguity.
>>  >
>>
>> Ohhhh. Why isn't it considered then? (Suppose we already knew Positive 
>> is not a keyword and not preceded by the keywords struct, class, etc.)
> 
> I believe it should be considered. At some point there was discussion on 
> accepting a last parameter of delegate type outside the function parens. 
> The idea was to allow user-defined code to define constructs similar to 
> e.g. if and foreach.
> 

Probably use

   func () {
     // some delegates
   }

? Just like what has been done to class invariants. But this may cause 
ambiguity if the 1st parameter of func is optional...

 >
> But I think that has many other problems (one of which is that the 
> delegate can't reasonably specify parameters), so we can safely discount 
> that as a problem.
> 
> I'd want to give it a try. How do others feel about Template{arguments}?
> 
> 
> Andrei