@property needed or not needed?

[Rob T]

On Monday, 19 November 2012 at 06:53:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> 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

I'm making good use out of UFCS functions that work like 
properties, so to remain consistent with struct/class calling 
syntax, I would expect to have the ability to define functions 
that have property semantics at the module level.

I really think that modules should have properties anyway, and 
since I can do it, I am doing it, and it works great.

My guess is that if @property gets enforced, we'll see a lot of 
functions with empty parameter lists being defined as @property 
for the sole reason to get rid of having to type in the ().

--rt