Make `C()`, where `C` is a class name, a compile-time error.

docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex

 \documentclass{article}
 \usepackage{epsfig}
 \usepackage{color}
 \usepackage{dart}
 \usepackage{bnf}
 \usepackage{hyperref}
 \usepackage{lmodern}
 \newcommand{\code}[1]{{\sf #1}}
 \title{Dart Programming Language  Specification  \\
 {4th edition draft}\\
@@ skipping 3692 matching lines @@
 An unqualified function invocation $i$ has the form
 
 $id(a_1, \ldots, a_n, x_{n+1}: a_{n+1}, \ldots, x_{n+k}: a_{n+k})$,
 
 where $id$ is an identifier.
 
 \LMHash{}
 If there exists a lexically visible declaration named $id$, let $f_{id}$ be the innermost such declaration. Then:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item
-If $f_{id}$ is a prefix object, a compile-time error occurs.
+If $f_{id}$ is a prefix object or a type literal, a compile-time error occurs.
 \item
  If $f_{id}$ is a local function, a library function, a library or static getter or a variable then $i$ is interpreted as a function expression invocation (\ref{functionExpressionInvocation}).
  \item
 Otherwise, if $f_{id}$ is a static method of the enclosing class $C$, $i$ is equivalent to $C.id(a_1, \ldots , a_n, x_{n+1}: a_{n+1}, \ldots , x_{n+k}: a_{n+k})$.
 \item Otherwise, $f_{id}$ is considered equivalent to the ordinary method invocation $\THIS{}.id(a_1, \ldots , a_n, x_{n+1}: a_{n+1}, \ldots , x_{n+k}: a_{n+k})$.
 \end{itemize}
 
 \LMHash{}
 Otherwise, if $i$ occurs inside a top level or static function (be it function, method, getter,  or setter) or variable initializer, evaluation of $i$ causes a \cd{NoSuchMethodError} to be thrown.
 
 \LMHash{}
 If $i$ does not occur inside a top level or static function, $i$ is equivalent to $\THIS{}.id(a_1, \ldots , a_n, x_{n+1}: a_{n+1}, \ldots , x_{n+k}: a_{n+k})$.
 
 
 % Should also say:
 % It is a static warning if $i$  occurs inside a top level or static function (be it function, method, getter,  or setter) or variable initializer and there is no lexically visible declaration named $id$ in scope.
 
 
 
 
 
 \subsubsection{ Function Expression Invocation}
 \LMLabel{functionExpressionInvocation}
 
 \LMHash{}
 A function expression invocation $i$ has the form
 
 $e_f(a_1, \ldots , a_n, x_{n+1}: a_{n+1}, \ldots , x_{n+k}: a_{n+k})$,
 
-where $e_f$ is an expression. If $e_f$ is an identifier $id$, then $id$ must necessarily denote a local function, a library function, a library or static getter or a variable as described above, or $i$ is not considered a function expression invocation. If $e_f$ is a property extraction expression (\ref{propertyExtraction}), then $i$ is is not a function expression invocation and is instead recognized as an ordinary method invocation (\ref{ordinaryInvocation}).
+where $e_f$ is an expression. If $e_f$ is an identifier $id$, then $id$ must necessarily denote a local function, a library function, a library or static getter or a variable as described above, or $i$ is not considered a function expression invocation.
+It is a compile time error if $e_f$ is a type literal, or $e_f$ is $T.k$ where $T$ is a type literal and $k$ is the name of a constructor on the class denoted by $T$.
+Otherwise, if $e_f$ is a property extraction expression (\ref{propertyExtraction}), then $i$ is is not a function expression invocation and is instead recognized as an ordinary method invocation (\ref{ordinaryInvocation}). It is a compile-time error if $e_f$ denotes a constructor.

[eernst, 2016/10/25 08:04:53]

In which case can $e_f$ denote a constructor, which is not already covered by
line 3744?

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, 2016/11/16 11:36:03]

Agree, it should be covered by the previous line.

The syntactically possible ways to denote a constructor is:
C
C.name
prefix.C
prefix.C.name
(This rules out using C<T> instead of C because type arguments are still only
allowed in new-expressions)

Of those, C and prefix.C are type literals (as much as "type literal" is ever
defined) so all the cases are covered by line 3744.

Sentence removed.

 
 \commentary{
 \code{$a.b(x)$} is parsed as a method invocation of method \code{$b()$} on object \code{$a$}, not as an invocation of getter \code{$b$} on \code{$a$} followed by a function call \code{$(a.b)(x)$}.  If a method or getter \code{$b$} exists, the two will be equivalent. However, if \code{$b$} is not defined on \code{$a$}, the resulting invocation of \code{noSuchMethod()} would differ.  The \code{Invocation} passed to \code{noSuchMethod()} would describe a call to a method \code{$b$} with argument \code{$x$} in the former case, and a call to a getter \code{$b$} (with no arguments) in the latter.
 }
 
 \LMHash{}
 Otherwise:
 
 A function expression invocation $e_f(a_1, \ldots , a_n, x_{n+1}: a_{n+1}, \ldots , x_{n+k}: a_{n+k})$ is equivalent to $e_f.call(a_1, \ldots , a_n, x_{n+1}: a_{n+1}, \ldots , x_{n+k}: a_{n+k})$.
 
@@ skipping 4158 matching lines @@
 
 The invariant that each normative paragraph is associated with a line
 containing the text \LMHash{} should be maintained.  Extra occurrences
 of \LMHash{} can be added if needed, e.g., in order to make
 individual \item{}s in itemized lists addressable.  Each \LM.. command
 must occur on a separate line.  \LMHash{} must occur immediately
 before the associated paragraph, and \LMLabel must occur immediately
 after the associated \section{}, \subsection{} etc.
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------