🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 794BDF32@ecid.cig.mot.com, Joe Walker <walkerjj@ecid.cig.mot.com> writes:
>I would like to know why the standard couldn't allow dropping empty parentheses.
>For example instead of:
>
>  sync ();
>
>I could write:
>
>  sync;

But "sync" already has a meaning: "the-address-of-function-sync". 

>  This would allow us to get rid of all those get/set functions ...
>
>The latter could be very useful in porting C code to C++.

It would also break C code that depends on the current meaning of a
function name without parentheses. Changing the meaning of long-
established constructs should not be undertaken lightly.

---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your 
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu 
]