DIP27 available for destruction

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 20:42:57 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 02/26/2013 06:09 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>> I like overall approach and think it really should be rule of 
>> a thumb
>> for designing D features - defining simple bullet-proof 
>> semantics and
>> making conclusions from it.
>> As opposed to syntax-based special case coverage.
>> ...
>
> Like it or not, that is what a compiler does.
>
>> What I do find lacking in this DIP:
>>
>> 1) "Optional parentheses" part needs detailed description why 
>> exactly
>> those cases have special handling and how are they different 
>> from
>> others. ...
>>
>
> That part needs a complete overhaul. It is way too complex 
> given the goal the DIP pursuits.
>

I have to say I'm not a big fan of it. But several people really 
seems to enjoy the ability to call function without (), so I went 
through some codebase to see where it is used most and figured 
out when it does not conflict with something else.

> I guess it breaks most projects out there.

I guess any changes to the way you call function is going to 
break a fair amount of code. This is the most basic feature. This 
is also why you really need to get it straightforward and simple.