@property needed or not needed?

[deadalnix]

On Sunday, 2 December 2012 at 01:04:03 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Sunday, December 02, 2012 01:16:40 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I'd _love_ to make it illegal to call non-property functions 
> without parens,
> and there are definitely folks around here who agree with me, 
> including some on
> the Phobos dev team (e.g. Steven has always agreed with me when 
> this has come
> up), but there are enough folks around here here who like to 
> call functions
> without parens - especially with UFCS and templated functions 
> like map or
> filter - that I don't think that that's going to fly at this 
> point.

As said before a lot of such usages can be made valid with a sane 
semantic using opDispatch.

BTW, I can't edit in the wiki? When I try to do so, it says me 
that deadalnix is an invalid username. If I need to register, I 
didn't found out how.