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

[mist]

On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 16:29:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> So you DO make a difference between setters and getters.
Yes, sure. But I do not need new keywords for that.

> funName(t) is valid if funName returns a delegate. The compiler 
> shouldn't even try to interpret funName(...) as a call of 
> funName.

Yes, I have finally understood how it is intended to work. I just 
do not like complexity with re-writing funName(t) as funName()(t) 
and hidden struct creation from function symbols. I cheer any 
compiling restrictions, but overall type system should be as 
transparent as possible for normal cases. Like brutal simplicity 
of my proposal better :)

But it is an interesting approach, thank you for the insight.