Remove parentheses on function calls with no parameters

[ollym]

It's ugly and such a pain having to do foo.bar() just because the function has no parameters. Can we use the ! operator to call the function? 1 symbol is always easier than 2.

foo.bar! => foo.bar()

And with existence operator:

foo.bar!?.baz is equivalent to foo.bar()?.baz

So....

Array::empty = -> @length > 0

if array.empty! then throw 'Array is Empty!'

I understand this may confuse some ruby developers - but in my option we're already confusing them with the use of ? for the existence operator.

Thoughts?

[ollym]

Just seen this relates to #514 and #1412 guess people don't like the bang idea :(

[ollym]

maybe

foo.bar..baz => foo.bar().baz

and

foo.bar.?.baz => foo.bar()?.baz

But even then we're still using 2 characters. .. is still cleaner and easier than ()

[showell]

I think parens win strongly on readability, just because it's such a common way to call a function. You can also say "do foo".

[ollym]

I see it more as a way to adding getters to coffee script using syntax rather than requiring it within the VM.

[rlidwka]

if you dont want parens for some reason you always can write do something which translates to function call

I see no point in increasing complexity of a language just to win one character

[geraldalewis]

foo.bar! => foo.bar()
I see it more as a way to adding getters to coffee script

I think that'd create some dissonance with Ruby's precedent of identifiers ending with ! mutating the object's state.

I'm pretty sensitive to parens and other sigils, too, but when it matters I use do as others have suggested.

[michaelficarra]

I think this one's ready to be closed.