David A. Black <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure about the naturalness of it -- I'm more thinking about
> the fact that () isn't a method, whereas x(), where x is an object
> reference (rather than a method identifier), looks like you're calling
> the method () on x.

It isn't a method in 1.9?  Well, maybe it will be made a method or at
least a synonym/alias for call, although I guess that parsing-wise you
might have to find a compromise.

x() doesn't really look like a method any more than x[] does...

Cheers,
Navin.