On 1/24/13 6:50 AM, mist wrote:
I am probably I minority here but I liked the most strict -property version and it made a lot of sense to me. Rationale is simple: some().ufcs().chaining(); - this is just a minor syntax inconvenience
It becomes way uglier with templates: some!(e1)().ufcs!(e2)().chaining!(e3)(). In fact look at the code written by Nick in _favor_ of the parens. Self-destruction at its finest.
anything; - this drives me crazy, there is no way to understand if this
I was amazed at how quickly I got used to it.
a no-op statement variable of function call with some side-effect I'd really like to have all function types to be obliged to use () and use property syntax only to those of property semantics (no side-effect variable getter/setter) But looking at other comments this does not seem popular :( Well, I can only hope for something simple and non-revolutionary then.
You'll still be able to use parens. Andrei
