Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ICSI.Berkeley.EDU!krste
From: krste@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU ( Krste Asanovic)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: foo() => foo
Keywords: function call syntax
Message-ID: <26841@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 8 Aug 90 08:11:42 GMT
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: krste@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU ( Krste Asanovic)
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 16
X-Local-Date: 8 Aug 90 01:11:42 PDT

As the originator of the suggestion, I thought I ought to wrap up this
discussion.

Interestingly, people were divided over whether the idea was desirable
in the first place. My suggestion was prompted by a desire for

1) Better implementation hiding. You shouldn't care whether foo is a
   public data member or a function.

2) Neater code. Empty().parentheses().are().often().unwanted().litter() .

Thanks to everybody who pointed out that a.foo, where foo is a member
function, already has a meaning (address of foo). Most people
(including me now) agree that this would be too great a change to make
to C++/C, so unless someone can spot a neat way of adding this I guess
we should drop the subject from the group.