SE-0216: User-defined dynamically callable types

[Chris_Lattner3 (Chris Lattner)]

@John_McCall

Right. I think having a consistent and utterable name for the method — e.g. in case you want to call it directly instead of through the syntax, which isn't hard to imagine for these features — is actually very beneficial here.

+1. I don't see what this flexibility would buy us. If there was a compelling reason to add this, we could consider it as a follow-on proposal, since it is strictly more general than the base proposal.

-Chris

[John_McCall]

SE-0216 has been accepted. You can find the rationale here.