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

[Jesse Phillips]

On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 00:43:46 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
> The problem is that the moment we start talking about @property 
> the optional parens people (colloquially referred to henceforth 
> as "your side") start jumping in and attacking us about how 
> removing optional parens would make your sides lives utter 
> misery.

Well, I'd hope @property could give the compiler enough 
information to give syntax that matches fields. That hasn't 
happened yet so I don't see it worth keeping. And if the 
@property syntax has to be changed from a function I'd consider 
it a failure too.

That said many that want @property, want optional parens to die, 
as shown by your side comment that follows.

> (Personally, i'd beg to differ, I work with C# UFCS every, 
> freaking, day. I don't even notice the extra parens any more. 
> But most importantly, the syntax is ambiguous to neither the 
> compiler or myself, I know at a subconscious level what I am 
> looking at.)

I haven't had to deal with reading much other peoples code in D 
or Ruby, so I don't have much information on the readability 
challenges from one side or the other, but so far my experience 
has been that it doesn't matter. And while it is a hot topic, D 
has had it for a long time and no real evidence it is a big 
problem has risen. (Only the return a delegate from a function)