Revised RFC on range design for D2

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Jason House wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>  
>> I think we all agree that there are some annoyances related to the whole
>> property business, among which the main one is:
>>
>> writeln = 4;
>>
>> That is quite indefensible :o|. I consider the others rather minor, but
>> that's just a personal opinion.
>>
>> How about this. Maybe if we attacked this annoyance in particular, that
>> would be a large bang for the buck without a landslide change in the
>> compiler. We only need some way to inform the compiler, "yes, it's ok to
>> call a.b(c) as a.b = c". Ideas?
> 
> That seems like a bad idea if it allows a forgetful/lazy/overworked library
> writer to cause users to be unable to use property syntax in natural cases. 
> I'd say explicit forbidding of property syntax is a better idea.
> 
> Based on some people's view of properties, allowing property get syntax for
> pure functions would make a lot of sense.  Others would hate that.  I'm not
> sure if restricting users would be all that popular.  It may be better
> placed in some kind of lint tool.

But I'm talking about property set syntax, not get.

Andrei