Since Python makes such a distinction between statements and expressions, I am proposing that function calls as statements should be allowed to omit parentheses. What I am proposing is 100% compatible with Python 2.x&#39;s behavior of function calls; so those uncomfortable with this (basic) idea can continue to use parens in their function calls. Expressions still require parens because of ambiguity and clarity issues.

--Some examples:-- print &quot;Parenless function call!&quot;, file=my_file print(&quot;.. but this is still allowed&quot;) # We still need parens for calls to functions where the sole argument is a tuple

# But you&#39;d have to do this anyway in Python 2.x... nothing lost. print((1, 2)) # Need parens if the function call isnt the only thing in the statement cos(3) + 4 # Need parens if function call isnt a statement, otherwise how would we get the function itself?

<br>x = cos(3) <br><br># Make a the value of my_func...<br>my_func2 = my_func <br>my_func2 # call other function<br>my_func2() # call it again<br><br># Method call?<br>f = open(&quot;myfile&quot;)<br>f.close<br><br># Chained method

<br>obj.something().somethinganother().yeah<br><br>--Notes:--<br><br>A lot of other things in Python 2.x/Python 3k at the moment have this same behavior...<br><br># No parens required<br>x, y = b, a <br><br># But sometimes they are

func((1, 2)) # Generator expressions sometimes don&#39;t need parens func(i for i in list) # But sometimes they do func(a, (i for i in list)) --Pros:-- 1) Removes unnecessary verbosity for the majority of situations.

2) Python 2.x code works the same unmodified. 3) No weird stuff with non-first class objects, ala Ruby meth.call(). Functions still remain assignable to other values without other trickery. 4) Because it&#39;s completely backwards compatible, you could even have something like from __future__ import parenless in Python

2.6 for a transition. --Cons:-- 1) Can&#39;t type &quot;func&quot; bare in interpreter to get its repr. I think this is a non-issue; I personally never do this, and with parenless calls you can just type &quot;repr func&quot; anyway. Specifically I think this shouldn&#39;t be considered because in scripts doing something like &quot;

f.close&quot; does absolutely nothing and giving it some functionality would be nice. It also solves one of the Python gotchas found here: <a href="http://www.ferg.org/projects/python_gotchas.html">http://www.ferg.org/projects/python_gotchas.html

</a> (specifically #5) I&#39;m willing to write up a proper PEP if anyone is interested in the idea. I figured I&#39;d poll around first.