Make dur a property?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 15:14:36 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/24/13 2:26 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:30:46 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> On 1/24/13 4:28 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
> >>> We actually have one, which I think I agree with:
> >>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP21
> >> 
> >> Walter convinced me last night that eliminating @property is more
> >> sensible.
> > 
> > Well, that's bad news. It's bad enough that @property hasn't been properly
> > sorted out, but getting rid of it completely disregards the problems that
> > it's trying to solve. Getting rid of @property would be a horrible move
> > IMHO.
> No, the idea is to use better inference for the cases in which @property
> would be appropriate.
> 
> So we are looking at _changing_ the language, not simply ignoring @property.

Then what do you mean to do with @property? Regardless of what we do with 
paren-less function calls, I think that it's important to have explicit 
properties - particularly when you consider enhancement requests such as
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8006 (which we probably should 
have implemented ages ago).

- Jonathan M Davis