Function calls

[Jesse Phillips]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:

>
> A programming language *is* a set of enforced conventions. When something 
> either can't be enforced mechanically (ex: accurate and meaningful variable 
> names), or has real practical value in not having an enforced convention 
> (ex: user-definable variable names, free-form whitespace, underscores in 
> numeric literals), that's when it's left to the users to make up their own 
> arbitrary and likely-conflicting conventions. Arbitrary freedoms just for 
> the sake of it: great in real life, lousy in a programming language.
>
> If we don't enforce the convention of (non-property) functions being called 
> with parens, the only things gained besides that useless "arbitrary freedom 
> in a programming language just for the sake of it" is a couple fewer 
> keystrokes and an extremely minuscule reduction in alleged "noise" (the 
> usefulness of which is easily canceled out by the fact that reduction in 
> inconsistency improves readability too).
>

I agree. If we do not require parentheses on functions then there is no
benefit to having @property.

I was on the side of not having a special "property" syntax. However the
DIP4 example "ambiguous-looking code" was enough to make me happy to see
@property. And I like the simplicity for creating them, over say C# and
Java...

I've just been assuming properties have not yet been finished. And maybe
we will get +=,-= in the future.