ufcs and integer params

[Brad Roberts]

On 7/18/2012 5:30 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 at 11:37:43 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> Arguments! Yay!
> 
> I've gone over this a dozen times on the group and on
> bugzilla, and I'm kinda sick of repeating it.
> 
> -property breaks craploads of code. That's a huge negative,
> and nobody has even come close to countering that.
> 
> "-property will be the standard" is utterly worthless, yet
> that's really the only thing I see brought up again.

The clear argument for me is that it must be trivial to take an existing member variable and change it to a property
function pair _and vice versa_.  If someone has @property int foo() and @property void foo(int) as members of a class
and call sites add (), then yanking those back to just int foo; will fail, badly.  So that must be explicitly disallowed.

THAT is the argument for enforcing the lack of parens after properties, imho.  The other bits about non- at property
functions is significantly less important as far as I'm concerned.

My 2 cents,
Brad