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

[TommiT]

On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 14:29:22 UTC, mist wrote:
>
> It is a tempting attempt to save two symbols of typing that 
> completely breaks property semantics. I am objecting against 
> it. With all my passion.
> Use value.is_zero() for UFCS magic.

My understanding of the point of UFCS has been that it enables 
you to add functionality to a type without actually modifying the 
type. So, let me get this straight... are you saying that the 
following code snippet breaks property semantics?

struct MyType {}

@property bool is_valid(MyType)
{
     return true;
}

void main()
{
     MyType mt;
     mt.is_valid;
}

Or, are you saying that we shouldn't be able to add properties to 
built-in types? Or are you saying something else entirely?