@property needed or not needed?

[Andrej Mitrovic]

On 11/20/12, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
> I suspect that the
> best that we can hope for at this point is for lax property enforcement -
> that is that it's enforced that @property functions are used as properties but
> there is no enforcement that non- at property functions be called with parens.

Here's a good reason why the latter isn't the best idea:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2159

The reporter made the mistake of issuing a function call instead of
taking an address of a function, which in turn invoked a different
function overload with the temporary result.