Revised RFC on range design for D2

[Jason House]

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.
> 

I assume you'd also want parens if the function modified global state? If so, I believe you'd want parens with all impure member function calls.

Obviously, we're talking about property getters and not setters. I was told once already that such things are off topic :) I think it's relevant to the spirit of the conversation.