On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
Speaking of syntactical ambiguity, the expression
S(1, 2, 3)
can, right now, have one of three meanings:
1. A struct literal for struct S
2. A call to S's static opCall
3. An instantiation of S and a call to its ctor
Even if opCall goes away, we'll still be left with the ambiguity of struct literal vs. ctor. I'd really, really like to hear Walter's view on this but he has responded neither to the thread I posted on digitalmars.D nor the bugzilla ticket (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2170).
If there's any opCall defined for S, then S(args) is an opCall call.
Otherwise, it's a struct literal.