Make dur a property?

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:14:21 -0500
Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> On 1/23/13 1:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> No. The caller does get to decide a variety of syntactic aspects of
> the invocation.
> 

Yes, but it's unfortunate that includes a part of the syntax that
carries semantic/conceptual implications for something (action or
data) that is already *inherently* determined by writer of the *callee*.

> > 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.
> 
> The implied assumption here is that if it doesn't have parens it's a 
> property. Well it's a function call.
> 

Right, it's a function call. So what in the world do we gain by
allowing the caller to make it look like something it isn't? Nothing.