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

[Chad J]

On 01/24/2013 07:34 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 08:35:01 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> 1. Empty parens are optional. If there is an ambiguity with the return
>> value taking (), the () go on the return value.
>
> As mentioned, this seems dangerous. I'd suggest requiring when there is
> ambiguity. It still has generic problems, but it will never be silent.
>
>> 4. No more @property.
>
> I'm on the side that would miss optional parens if they died. In would
> be nice if @property actually made a function behave like a field.
>
> foo += bar;
>
> It seems there are lots of complications around this? So yes kill
> @property.
>

This has nothing to do with @property.  It has to do with defining what 
+= /does/ to a property.

I think that what you want is semantic property rewriting.

See this:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments/Property#Semanticrewritingofproperties

> On another note,
>
> To properly correct this situation we will break code. So before you get
> started be sure to try out the new feature preview release approach :)