Nick Sabalausky: > Even if it weren't for that, I would still consider this important enough to > be worth the hassle of changing it. It would be better than letting D > forever maintain the cruft of a particularly bad design decision (no > offense, Walter) in the same way that C++ would.
But I am not sure that proposed idea is the best, because in Python (that acts like that) you often enough write for mistake: x = foo Forgetting the (). In this case x gets a (kind of) reference to foo and not to its result. You can do something similar in that D proposal: auto x = foo So I think &foo and foo() are more explicit and better (better == less error-prone), to represent the pointer/delegate/closure, and to represent the calling. Bye, bearophile