new DIP5: Properties 2

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Benji Smith wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> So to sum up, with this feature lack of parentheses would imply no 
>>> action, but would not be enforced.  However, it would be considered 
>>> incorrect logic if the rule was not followed, similar to naming your 
>>> functions something other than what they do.
>>
>> I am leery of such a feature. It essentially introduces a way to 
>> define conventions that are in no way useful to, or checked by, 
>> language rules. In my experience this has been a bad idea more often 
>> than not.
> 
> Like it or not, that's exactly the situation we have now, with the 
> (sometimes)-optional parentheses. Some people are using a convention of 
> never using the optional parens. Other people use the parens only when a 
> function an action, and avoiding them otherwise. And some other people 
> (like me) always use the parens.
> 
> So the clusterfuck of unenforceable and useless conventions is already 
> here. Here's my suggestions: if you think putting parentheses on a 
> no-arg function is stupid, then it should be a syntax error for them to 
> exist. That wouldn't be my first choice, but it'd be a thousand times 
> better than the situation with optional parens.
> 
> --benji

I agree that it's not good to have two ways of doing the same thing. Now 
think of it for a second: a full-blown language feature has been 
proposed to not fix that, but reify it.

Andrei