[E-Lang] get, set, and dot

[zooko@mad-scientist.com]

 MarcS wrote:

> How deliciously petulant :-)
> 
> In fact, I don't think any of us were ever proposing a syntax in which these
> syntaxes did anything except assign the maker object to the new variable :-)


<Zooko is confused.  Zooko goes back and re-reads.>


D'oh!


Okay sorry for the side-track.  But FWIW I don't think any C++, Java or
Python programmer will ever mistake 


def myThing := thingMaker
or
def myThing := newThing

for 

def myThing := thingMaker()
or
def myThing := newThing()


Regards,

Zooko

> > > MarcS wrote:
> > > > def myThing := thingMaker
> > > > #versus
> > > > def myThing := newThing
> > >
> > > If, as I suggest, E also got rid of the "optional ()" sugar, then this
> > > problem would go away. It would then be obvious that neither of these
> > > expressions could possibly be calling a method.
> >
> >
> > You mean those statements above could be _invoking_ the methods
> > `thingMaker' and `newThing', respectively!?  Ack!