Can `.call`/`.bind` be used with the bind operator?

[Volune]

At first I was trying to imagine the benefits of mixing .call/.bind with the "pipeline operator" I've seen in other issues (the one that use the left expression as first argument in the right call expression), i.e. simulate a this-pipeline operator with a first-arg-pipeline operator.

That make me wonder what would happen if we mix .call/.bind with the currently specified bind operator:

• If value::a.b.c(0) gives a.b.c.call(value, 0) ~~ somehow value.c(0) with the c from a.b Would value::a.b.call(0) be somehow equivalent to value.call(0) ?
• If ::a.b.c gives a.b.c.bind(a.b) ~~ more or less equivalent to (...args) => a.b.c(...args) Would ::a.b.call give (...args) => a.b.call(...args)?

Or Syntax Errors ?

[Igorbek]

1. value::a.b.call(0) -> a.b.call.call(value, 0)
2. ::a.b.call -> a.b.call.bind(a.b)

why should it be syntax error?

[Volune]

If there are no errors or unexpected/tricky behavior with .bind/.call, I'm closing. I preferred to ask for nothing rather than miss a potential problem.