Beta D 2.069.0-b1

[Meta via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Saturday, 10 October 2015 at 02:31:51 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> That's what I meant, weird use-case, at best it's a callback 
> better/setter.
> I've never written such code, but even if you would, the 2 
> pairs of parens are only a tiny problem for generic code, 
> nothing to warrant the invasive language feature @property is.

I don't know how much metaprogramming-heavy generic code you've 
written, but I can say from first-hand experience that there is 
such a thing as Hell, and it is called Optional Parens.

Jokes aside, I've finally fixed (read: worked around using awful 
hacks) a bug where the compiler was complaining about either 
"Type.memberFunction is not callable with arguments ()" or "Need 
'this' for Type.memberFunction". I love optional parens in 
regular code, especially range-based code (doesn't everybody?), 
but I desperately want a way to ensure that the symbol that I'm 
trying to pass to a template function won't be interpreted as a 
function call instead.