Field and Method Literals

[Matthew Adams]

> To be clear, there are three reasonable choices here:
>  - Just don't ever support field literals;

:(

>  - Have a different syntax for field literals vs method literals;

:(

>  - Have the same syntax, and use a sensible heuristic for preferring one in
> the event of conflict.

:)

> The stupid choice would be:
>  - Don't think at all about field literals now, and create a method literal
> syntax that boxes us in should we ever want field literals later, and then
> say "oh crap" later.
>
> We won't be choosing that last choice.
>
LOL

Thanks for helping me sleep at night.  FWIW, I still like the "#"
character & infix "Class#Method" form for method literals this because
it's like javadoc & it's one less character to type than "::".
Besides, "::" is so C++!  ;)

Officially letting go now...

-matthew