@property needed or not needed?

[deadalnix]

On Wednesday, 21 November 2012 at 18:07:42 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
> On 2012-11-21 18:53, deadalnix wrote:
>
>> I don't understand why dropping () is that a big deal when 
>> dropping &
>> isn't.
>
> Now I'm really confused. What did you mean when you original 
> wrote:
>
> "Note the map(reverse) and not map(&reverse)"

I meant that because of the fact that function isn't called 
implicitly, it is possible to pass it directly without having the 
& . The & is a source of noise as the () are and introduce really 
complicated rules in the language to know if funName have to be 
executed or not.

Scala's design is consistent on this point. D's isn't because we 
pursue conflicting goals. Those have been conflated in a messy 
implementation defined behavior ATM.

We have to accept to break some code here or to stick with 
current implementation and accept that is is inconsistent and 
messy (and sometime leading to very weird possibilities like 
Timon Gehr demonstrated).