@property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

[Zach the Mystic]

On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 22:02:06 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 01/25/2013 10:44 PM, Zach the Mystic wrote:
>> Here are my two cents:
>>
>> First, about optional parentheses:
>>
>> Optional parentheses = ambiguity.
>> ...
>
> No, you can definitely have ambiguity without optional 
> parentheses.
> Unless that is supposed to be a destructive update. Is your 
> statement ambiguous?

Actually, you're right. I meant: Optional parentheses as a 
feature leads to ambiguity precisely when they are not used.

>> int foo() { return 4; }
>> auto x = foo; // gives 4 or gives function foo?
>>
>> It seems to me any ambiguity should be an error. However… it 
>> only
>> matters when the type system can't provide the missing detail, 
>> as above.
>> ...
>
> That is not ambiguous.

But this time *your* comment is ambiguous! If you mean my 
*statement* is not ambiguous, then yes.