DIP23 Counter Proposal

[deadalnix]

On Wednesday, 6 February 2013 at 21:30:10 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> &(fun, fun)
>>
>
> Agh, comma strikes again. It should be handled analogous to the 
> ternary expression. i.e. the expression above evaluates fun and 
> then returns the function pointer. The DIP now states this. 
> (the second fun is in address-taken position.) This is in 
> agreement to how lvalue positions propagate into comma 
> expressions.
>

Adding more special cases are not gonna create a good DIP.

Can't we make foo evaluate the the first class function object ? 
And then figure out if/when it is safe to auto evaluate first 
class functions ?

It seems to me like the only direction that do not ends up in an 
explosion of special cases.