Property discussion wrap-up

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/27/13 12:37 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 January 2013 at 16:50:47 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> Off topic rant.
>>
>> I suppressed a counterexample in the section Optional parentheses
>> - Extra note .
>>
>> The note state that some stuff are valid for *function* and the
>> counter example showed ambiguity using opCall. I don't know who did
>> this and I don't care. I however can't stand intellectual dishonesty.
>
> It was me, sorry if I have offended you. I tend to read "function" as
> "callable" if not mentioned otherwise and thus was wandering how note
> refers to this case. This left counter-example in hope that someone will
> comment it.
>
> Now I see that it should be better suited to discussion, but at that
> time it was just curiosity, not desire to prove anything.

I think we should leave the example somewhere, it's a syntactical case 
we need to look at. Regarding the original remark, intellectual 
dishonesty is as damaging as assuming it off-the-cuff.

Andrei