Make dur a property?

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:45:49 -0800
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 06:26:51PM +0100, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 17:13:05 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > >That is completely nonsensical behaviour. Just ignore -property.
> > 
> > 
> > Amen! -property MUST die. @property should fix the real problems
> > with properties, not leave that broken while adding new problems.
> 
> I'm starting to think that perhaps @property should be disposed of
> completely. Just unify properties with nullary functions and be done
> with it. There is no semantic difference between them anyway. (Didn't
> D1 used to do that?)
> 

Unfortunately, yea, D1 did do that. One of the many things that were
fixed in D2 (at least it was partially fixed anyway).

Having the *caller* decide whether something is a property or not makes
as much sense as having the caller decide the function's name,
signature and semantics.

This level of need to go doing s/()/ over everything is
blown ridiculously out of proportion. Not to mention misguided. I've
dealt with code that consistently took advantage of D1's misfeature of
disguising function calls as no-op statements, and it absolutely is
a non-feature that provides no *real* benefit outside of code
obfuscation contests.

Properties are for *properties*, not for hacking around a language's
syntax for the sake of a highly questionable and semantically
misleading aesthetic "benefit". And just because certain people
are unable/unwilling to see that there *is* in fact a meaningful
distinction between "property" and "function" doesn't mean it isn't
actually there.

> int x = ctfeFunc!(123)();	// looks ridiculous

If anything, that's an issue with template syntax, it has nothing to do
with properties, let alone the beloved practice of abusing properties
for the sake of things that clearly are not properties.