Syntax decision

[Steven Simpson]

On 28/09/11 15:41, Brian Goetz wrote:
> The nilary syntax is still a thorn.  But the obvious solution outlined
> below -- allow elision of the () -- leads to a syntactic ambiguity.  If
> ->  { statement; } were a valid lambda, then is:
>
>     (identifier) ->  { statement; }
>
> a one-arg lambda with inferred type, or a cast of a nilary lambda?

What happens if you treat it as an inferred-type unary?  If the author 
intended a casted nilary, will he always get compilation failure?[1]  If 
so, can he fix his error by adding the empty param list?:

   (identifier) () ->  { statement; }

IOW, nilary brackets aren't always optional.

[1] Hmm, does he get a syntax error or something more obscure?