Lambda syntax, etc

[BCS]

Hello Nick,

>> One #1 I'd be inclined to requier that the function be defined like
>> 
>>> void DoIt(int delegate(int) dg...)
>>> 
>> D laready has this syntax for Typesafe Variadic Functions
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/function.html
>> 
> I'm not quite convinced either way on this. For what reasons do you
> think the function header should be required to indicate "this uses
> block syntax"? What's wrong with just saying "If the last arg a
> function takes is a delegate, then that delegate can optionally be
> specified with block syntax."?
> 

I have used bare block statements on occasion and a missing ';' in the wrong 
place would be nasty to parse. Another option for killing that problem would 
be to forbid overloading only on a trailing delegate so Foo(int) and Foo(int, 
int delegate()) would be considered ambiguous (that argues for the ... as 
then the rule would be to forbid overloading only on block delegates)