Revised RFC on range design for D2

[KennyTM~]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> KennyTM~ wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
>>> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> There is no ambiguity either case. You evaluate Stdout.newline. The
>>>>> evaluation yields a value of some type. Then you evaluate formatln 
>>>>> against
>>>>> that value.
>>>> OK, then tell me what this does:
>>>>
>>>> x.y.z();
>>>>
>>>> Is y a property/field of x or a function call with no args?  I see a 
>>>> benefit
>>>> to being able to understand a line of code without requiring lots of 
>>>> extra
>>>> context.  I have to do less lookups of the source of a function or 
>>>> property.
>>>
>>> The problem with this argument is that unless you disallow properties
>>> altogether, you still won't know whether y is actually a field or a
>>> call to a property method without looking it up.
>>>
>>> --bb
>>
>> I think the distinction of with and without () is pretty stylistic, 
>> because the same argument can even be applied to operator overloading 
>> (does a=b means pointing the variable a to b, or calling a.opAssign(b)?)
>>
>> For me, I would use () if the function do modify the object itself.
> 
> But range.next does modify the object. On what basis do I need to add 
> the trailing parens?
> 
> Andrei

Well that's why *I* would use range.next() ;)