shouting versus dotting

[KennyTM~]

Benji Smith wrote:
> KennyTM~ wrote:
>> Benji Smith wrote:
>>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Chris R. Miller
>>>> <lordsauronthegreat at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The !() syntax seems to serve only as a heads up that it's a template.
>>>>> Otherwise (as far as I can tell) a simple foo(int)(bar, baaz) would 
>>>>> work
>>>>> just as well as foo!(int)(bar, baaz).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unambiguous grammar, you fail it.
>>>>
>>>> foo(bar)(baz); // template instantiation or a chained call?
>>>>
>>>> This _can_ be _made_ to work, but it would mean that the parse tree
>>>> would be dependent upon semantic analysis, and that just makes things
>>>> slow and awful.  I.e. C++.
>>>
>>> I'd be happy to get rid of OpCall, which I've always found confusing 
>>> and pointless.
>>>
>>> --benji
>>
>> That's going to break a lot of struct constructors using static opCalls.
> 
> Only because structs should have had constructors from the start. Using 
> opCall was always a hack around the lack of constructors on structs.
> 
> opCall is a source of numerous language ambiguities that make other 
> features more difficult to implement. For example, template 
> instantiation could be done with bare parentheses ("Template(args)" 
> instead of "Template!(args)" or "Template{args}") if opCall was eliminated.
> 
> --benji

But what about a method that returns a delegate?