@property needed or not needed?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 11/19/12 1:16 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 07:02:03 Rob T wrote:
>> So what's up with @property? Is it being depreciated for being
>> redundant, or will it later be strictly enforced, or is it to be
>> optionally enforced through a compiler switch?
>
> It didn't used to be necessary, but there are ambiguities without it
> (particularly with regards to property functions which return delegates),

I think we need to seriously revisit that. It's a corner case that hurts 
everyone everywhere.

> and
> a number of people don't like the laxness of practically any function with a
> particular sort of signature being able to be used as a property function
> rather than it being part of the API.

I think UFCS changes the playfield quite a lot. Code using UFCS looks a 
whole lot crappier with a bunch of arbitrary extra parens.


Andrei