Uniform Function Call syntax for properties

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vj9cunrweav7ka at localhost.localdomain...
> Someone was asking about UFC syntax for properties on d.learn, and I 
> realized, we have a huge ambiguity here.
>
> Given a function:
>
> @property int foo(int x)
>
> Is this a global setter or a getter on an int?
>
> i.e.
>
> int y = foo = 3;
>
> or
>
> int y = (3).foo;
>
> ???
>
> I know arrays have an issue with property setters, see a bug report I 
> filed a while back:
>
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3857
>
> But that seems like a totally unambiguous case (a global property function 
> with two parameters is obviously a setter on the first parameter in UFC).
>
> The getter seems much more problematic.  Does anyone have a solution 
> besides adding more syntax?  Should we disallow global properties to avoid 
> ambiguity?
>

Ugh, it seems D still doesn't quite understand the concept of a property. 
Here:

@property int foo()  // Obviously getter
@property void foo(int x)  // Obviously setter

No other form makes any sence as a property. Frankly, I'm very surprised, 
and dissapointed, that anything else is even allowed. The only *possible* 
exception being:

@property int foo(int x) // Combined getter/setter, if we decide that's 
needed

It doesn't make any sense for a property getter to have a parameter (unless 
it's one parameter and it's used to set a new value). And it doesn't make 
any sence for a setter to have anthing other than exactly one parameter. 
Just disallow it. What could possibly be the point anyway? If it's got 
parameters it's a function call, not a variable.

Additionally, with that understanding in place, this:

@property void foo(int x)  {...}
(3).foo();

Is probably the one place where UFC syntax should never be allowed, because 
it's obviously a setter, and since when does this ever make any sence:

int x;
(3).x; // Set x to 3?? WTF??