That's indeed a real advantage to function call notation. On the other hand, we have libraries like lambda and phoenix that allow us to work with the operators in a similar way.
IMO, something as basic as ranges, really embellished iterators, still pretty close to the std library, shouldn't need something as fancy as Phoenix to be used properly. C++ 0x lambdas will likely be a very popular feature, so we can expect a lot more code consuming functors in the future, all using operator() to invoke them. So in a way, operator() becomes even more special with C++0x than it used to be. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like the function syntax, and I wish C++ would treat methods and functions more uniformly, so I can write rng.transform(f).filter(g). But it is not standard, and I fear the "unknown unknowns":-) later if we decide now for a non-standard syntax.
You could do that today, but it's got the same coupling problem as named parameters in Boost.Graph and is solved by Boost.Parameter. Is there something in C++0x that causes decoupling?
You are right, doesn't work. Arno -- Dr. Arno Schoedl · aschoedl@think-cell.com Technical Director think-cell Software GmbH · Invalidenstr. 34 · 10115 Berlin, Germany http://www.think-cell.com · phone +49-30-666473-10 · toll-free (US) +1-800-891-8091 Directors: Dr. Markus Hannebauer, Dr. Arno Schoedl · Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 85229