Make dur a property?

[Timon Gehr]

On 01/23/2013 11:40 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 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*.
>

Keeping or leaving out the parens has no semantic implications.

>>> 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.
>

That does not make any sense. It still looks just like a function call, 
because that is how a function call might look.