DIP27 available for destruction

[deadalnix]

On Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 03:46:44 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/26/13 10:33 PM, kenji hara wrote:
>> 2013/2/27 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com
>> <mailto:jmdavisProg at gmx.com>>
>>
>>    I believe that both Walter and Andrei have said on multiple
>>    occasions that one
>>    of C's big mistakes was conflating function names with their
>>    addresses, and
>>    this DIP appears to be trying to do exactly that. And I 
>> honestly
>>    don't see
>>    what it buys us. It just makes the situation with parenless 
>> function
>>    calls
>>    worse. At least right now, it's clear when you're dealing 
>> with a
>>    function
>>    pointer or a parenless function call. With this DIP, it 
>> wouldn't be.
>>
>>
>> I agree with Jonathan. DIP27 is a recurrence of C's mistake.
>> It would remove a language future, and breaking much existing 
>> code, and
>> then introduces nothing. Certainly compiler implementation may 
>> be
>> simplified a little by doing it, however it is too small 
>> benefit than
>> the D world destruction.
>>
>> Kenji Hara
>
> Agreed. I think it's safe to close it.
>
> Andrei

Andrei, Kenji and Jonathan, can you explain what error of C did 
this DIP reproduce and why it is an error ?