shouting versus dotting

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu escribió:
>> 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.
>>
>> 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}?
> 
> I thought no one read my post, now I see you are discussing it in 
> another thread. :-P
> 
> After I posted, I also remembered the possibility of allowing delegate 
> invocation in a nicer way, and that conflicts with Foo{T}. :-(

I think we can drop that. Even if we allow that, there will be parens 
needed before the delegate body, at least for passing it arguments.

Andrei