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

[Timon Gehr]

On 01/25/2013 01:12 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/24/13 6:52 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:34:42 -0800, Walter Bright
>> <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This has turned into a monster. We've taken 2 or 3 wrong turns
>>> somewhere.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should revert to a simple set of rules.
>>>
>>> 1. Empty parens are optional. If there is an ambiguity with the return
>>> value taking (), the () go on the return value.
>>>
>>> 2. the:
>>> f = g
>>> rewrite to:
>>> f(g)
>>> only happens if f is a function that only has overloads for () and
>>> (one argument). No variadics.
>>>
>>> 3. Parens are required for calling delegates or function pointers.
>>>
>>> 4. No more @property.
>>
>> I just worked through this with Alexander Bothe (of Mono-D fame). Here
>> is what C# does.
>>
>> public Action temp { get; set; }
>> public Action Event { get { return temp; } }
>> t.Event; //returns the delegate
>> t.Event(); //calls the delegate.
>>
>> Simple, clean, clear, concise. No problems with optional parens.
>>
>> (Action is a delegate in C#)
>
> This looks essentially the same as Walter's proposal.
>
> Andrei

Not at all. Walter's proposal just chooses the other option when stuff 
is "ambiguous" and adds a hideous special rule in case the empty 
argument list was obtained from an empty sequence.