Function calls

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
> news:hjt1ea$306u$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Good summary. I now wonder, could one overload based on @property?
>>
>> auto a = container.empty; // check for emptiness
>> container.empty();        // take the trash out
>>
>> !
>>
> 
> Why would that ever enter into anyone's mind? You already can't overload on 
> a member's type, you already can't overload on function's return type, and 
> you certainly can't overload on a mere decorator. There's no issue here.
> 
> 
>> Anyway, I have one more comment about the example:
>>
>> foreach (line; stdio.byLine) { ... }
>> vs.
>> foreach (line; stdio.byLine()) { ... }
>>
>> Steve said, byLine fetches a range off stdio. In fact it's not - it's an 
>> opApply() based loop. That already muddies the waters. But I have another, 
>> bigger concern. When I think of a property, I think I fetch it and it 
>> can't go back and modify its originator. Like if I do:
>>
>> auto x = y.length;
>>
>> I don't expect to later mess with x and change y through it.
>>
>> I'm sure an inventive mind could find an argument against this but if I 
>> try to be honest with myself I'd think it's tenuous to have the tail 
>> property wag the dog object.
>>
> 
> If you see a problem with being able to do this:
> 
> auto dog = new Dog();
> auto tail = dog.tail;
> tail.wag();

Nonono, the expression "tail wagging the dog" means that the actual tail 
stands still and the dog is shaking like a tail.

Andrei