If I had my way

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 03:45:35 F i L wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > The simplest solution would be to simply have the function
> > callable as a non-
> > property function when there's such an ambiguity, but that does
> > go against the whole "require a property function to be used as
> > a property" thing. Your suggested syntax is pretty good, but
> > it's not exactly a desirable solution either. I don't know.
> > Given the simplicity of it and the fact that there's no way
> > that you're going to change the property function to a member
> > variable (since it's not like you can add it to arrays),
> > allowing for it to be called as normal function seems like the
> > better solution, albeit not exactly ideal. Free functions
> > definitely complicate the whole property thing.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> Honestly I'm kind of a fan of having any method with zero or one
> parameters being usable as properties or methods at the
> programmer's discretion. Then conflicting pseudo methods could
> just be resolved through normal method semantics as you
> described. But I understand this is being removed so there must
> be a reason for it.

It was in part due to ambiguity with regards to delegates. Also, a fairly 
typical argument for properties is the ability to swap public member variables 
and property functions. That's not possible if you can't classify a function 
such that it _must_ be called as a property.

- Jonathan M Davis