Thanks for this patch! Will review soon (sorry for my delay).

It would be nice if the syntax definition could be refactored to be closer to new.

The way I understand this approach is not that it "adds parens for you", but that what's in the parens is just the optional contents of the argument list. @foo and @foo() are identical in the same way that new Foo and new Foo() are.

The way it's phrased in the grammar still sounds like @foo() is a call and @foo isn't; but neither are calls; it's just declaring a function reference and the arguments it should be called with. @(foo()) is a call.

@Kovensky I don't quite follow. With this patch, @foo and @foo() have the same semantics. Are you saying this isn't the right call?

Oh, no, I think this is the right semantics; it's just that, possibly because of the grammar production names, it feels like a monkey patch to the spec.

The suggestion is just to refactor the grammar productions so the parens are seen as an optional argument list instead of a "call-like" expression.

Unfortunately, we can't just use the new grammar directly because it permits square bracket property access, which is syntactically ambiguous with computed property names.