@property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/24/13 4:08 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:58:41 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/13 3:45 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:51:32 -0500
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>> No, you merely came up with *some* specific cherry-picked examples that
>>> sparked *some* debate (with most of the disagreing coming from
>>> you).
>>
>> I simply mentioned three reasons that came to mind.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> While I don't approve of Mr. Sabalausky's tone or attitude, the crux of
> his argument is logically sound. The problem with @property isn't
> @property, it's D's insistence on optional parens. If paren usage was
> clearly defined then this would be a non-issue. I would like to point
> out that I can't think of another systems/general purpose language that
> has an calling syntax specification as vague and convoluted as D's. C#'s
> is brutally simple. Java's is brutally simple. In C/C++ everything is a
> function or field, so, brutally simple.
>
> Make D's calling syntax simpler, end optional parens!

Simplicity is clearly good, but there's something to be said about those 
warts in chained calls. The UFCS-enabled idioms clearly bring a strong 
argument to the table, there's no ignoring it.

Andrei