DIP26: properties defined

[deadalnix]

On Saturday, 9 February 2013 at 09:45:25 UTC, Robert wrote:
> I am claiming that if we restrict ourselves to the property 
> concept
> explained in the DIP, then the range API would no longer depend 
> on front
> being a property, it can also be a function returning ref, 
> which is
> perfectly legal for UFCS.
>
> I am further claiming that properties via get/set methods don't 
> actually
> make sense outside of the entity that define them, I am glad if 
> you
> could give an actual example that would prove me wrong.
>
> And because properties are treated (apart from allowing = to 
> call the
> set method) exactly like normal functions, you should note no
> difference.
>
> It feels to me, that most problems arise due to the fact that 
> we try to
> make properties like fields (forbidding parentheses), which 
> make them
> essentially incompatible to functions, resulting in making all 
> sorts of
> things properties, which actually aren't, just so that no 
> template
> breaks.
>

That was painful to read. Can you please answer AFTER what you 
quote ? Also, you don't address most of the point Jonathan 
raises, and that should probably be a sign that you are not 
mastering the topic enough.