On Jul 26, Bart Massey wrote: > Note that the third is problematic for functions. Consider > > u_t v = u_t.f(g); /* init */ > void v = v.f(<>); /* call */ > > While these last two lines are distinct, it seems confusing > to me. I don't want to think about it :-). IMHO, lose (3), > not (4). A good additional point Bart. I also prefer keeping (4) instead of (3). -Carl