🚀 go-pugleaf

  >> If I had the choice of re-designing the language, I would 
  >> have disallowed the bare function name to be used as a 
  >> pointer to the function and allowed the calls to functions 
  >> without ().

	I wouldn't.. At least not the second part (I agree with 
the first part).  While a compiler would have little trouble 
figuring out:
	int  myfunc(void), x;
	x = myfunc;
  to a programmer, that still looks like assignment to two simple 
variables, and there's no point making the language anymore 
difficult to read.  The otherwise superflous "()" at the end is a 
nice visual cue that "Hey -- we're calling a function here.."

	Further, I also have no problem requiring the "&" if you 
wanted to take the address of a function.

[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]