Why are opCall's not implicitely assignable?

[Karen Lanrap]

Ivan Senji wrote:

> IMO (and knowing this NG) this is about a point in time where
> you will stop getting responses to your posts. It usually has
> something to do with a person refusing to understand a principal
> as basic as this one.

I already noticed that this NG is filled with posters refusing to 
understand simple principles---but willing to press others into 
principles they believe to be simple.

This whole thread showed, that near to none is able to capture that 
a property might have a complex structure. So complex that it might 
be best expressed by the most complex structure of D: a class.

I asked a question about the principles of the language D---and got 
some answers led by personal opinions about coding style. How comes 
that no answerer was able to convince Walter that his particular 
style is suitable for an entry in the "Style Guide"?


> It is all up to you:

No, it is not. D prohibits me to code the way I think. And the 
posters in this thread want not only themselves beeing forced to 
read the name of the same property over and over again, they also 
force others to code superfluous words---and at the same time they 
admire that they can replace a pair of parentheses by an equal 
sign.

That's mental inconsistency at its best.

Nobody even cared about the fact, that D is also intended for large 
scale projects which might include british and american style 
pronounciations, forcing every maintainer to exactly know whether 
to write color or colour.


> What point?

Ever heard of the module scope operator---or the D-style to 
separate an operator by one space from its operands?