DIP27 available for destruction

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 17:09:31 UTC, 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.
>
> 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. Also looks like example code has errors 
> there, for example, function that has no return statement and 
> uint return type.
>

For the .identifier part, it isn't ambiguous as function don't 
have members, and it has been proven to work well with automatic 
pointer dereferences. For the foreach case, it is invalid to pass 
a function anyway, so no ambiguity here. It also quite heavily 
used.