Taking address of properties

[deadalnix]

On Friday, 8 February 2013 at 21:02:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 2/8/13 2:05 PM, Robert wrote:
>> Look at the section "No module-level properties". Why not?! 
>> That's a
>> perfectly valid use of properties. The proposal disallows 
>> module-level
>> properties, but instead allows:
>> 	42.fun = 43;
>> which reads like: assign 43 to the fun property of 42. We get 
>> this
>> really obscure feature but disallowing module-level 
>> properties? If that
>> is not wrong, than I don't know what is.
>
> There would be ambiguities with module level properties. A 
> property with one argument may be either a setter for a 
> module-level property or a getter for the property of a 
> module-level object.
>

I think this was settled, allowing such property to only be a 
getter via UFCS.