Function calls

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:hjtbjh$pbg$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Pelle Månsson" <pelle.mansson at gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:hjt46j$5qt$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> I don't understand what any of this would improve. Is the byLine example 
>>> less readable without the ()? Is it more bug prone?
>>>
>>> The only thing achieved as I can see is that every class designer makes 
>>> up his own rules about which functions are property and which are not. 
>>> If this is somehow enforced, it will become a guessing game about how to 
>>> call no-argument functions. For what?
>>
>> Class "Foo" has member "bar". Is "bar" a member variable or a member 
>> function? Can you set it? Does it require arguments? You don't know, do 
>> you? It's a guessing game.
>>
>> To the caller, *properties are not functions*! I don't understand why we 
>> keep having to go in circles on this. They are data. Data, data, data. 
>> Not functions. Data. "Oh, but no, they're *implemented* as functions!" 
>> Who gives a crap? That's *implementation*. They're data. Data, data, 
>> data. With the proposal, if I use a class, that class has data and 
>> functions. Not "member variables, functions called with parens, and 
>> functions called without parens." Just data and functions. That's it. 
>> Data and functions.
>>
>> So if this is enforced, and you have a function, how do you call it? 
>> *With parens*! Why? Because it's a fucking function and functions are 
>> fucking called with parens! For god's sake, C# has had this for years, 
>> and nobody ever wonders "Do I use parens?" in C#, because if you're going 
>> to use something, you already know damn well if it's a function or data. 
>> Because if you don't know what the hell it is, you can't f***** make 
>> sensible use of it anyway.
>
> Relax, we're all on the same boat. Unfortunately, your view that it's all 
> functions and data is simplistic - it works well only when we talk about 
> returning simple data types. I, too, wish it were that simple.
>

The only catches in the idea of the caller seeing it as all data and 
functions are issues that are equally true regardless of whether properites 
are done the C# way or the D1 way.

So ok, strictly speaking, there's functions and then there's data that comes 
in two flavors. But that still does absolutely nothing to change my point 
that removing optional parens creates *no* guessing game that we don't 
already have because it's still functions (use parens) and data (regardless 
of what type of data, don't use parens).