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

docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex

Index: docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex
diff --git a/docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex b/docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex
index d0f62f2bbce8c323cf7d0d51e4f19cb4c584e135..cf23d0f6d0c46ad62ce6e195d59a44536a61fa0f 100644
--- a/docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex
+++ b/docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex
@@ -3710,7 +3710,7 @@ where $id$ is an identifier.
 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
@@ -3740,7 +3740,9 @@ 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.