shouting versus dotting

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Bent Rasmussen wrote:
> I assume,
> 
> - it was the path of least resistance
> - it looks close to function call syntax f!(x), which
> - is closer to intent than grouping statements, as with f{x}

Knowing Walter, I also believe he wanted to build on his success with 
using the unary operator "~" as a binary operator. "!" was the only 
exclusively unary operator left. I think somebody in this thread already 
mentioned that hypothesis. Only Walter knows :o).

In wake of the realization that many (most?) template instantiations are 
only made with one argument, I'm currently more interested in finding a 
good replacement for "!" than in finding a good replacement for "()", as 
the former will cater the more frequent case. But I'm glad so many good 
ideas have been brought here.


Andrei