DIP25 draft available for destruction

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/6/13 12:40 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> So the &value expression would only be left for taking addresses of
> functions? Wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around?
> E.g. create some utilty function that is only there for taking the
> address of functions and disallowing to do so by using &func?

I don't think that would work without adding new keywords.

Andrei