Property discussion wrap-up

[Zach the Mystic]

On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 00:07:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> BTW also regarding optional parentheses, while I was working on 
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/tools/pull/41/files I 
> refactored a bit of code to use UFCS and paren-less syntax. I 
> must say I find this a very fluid style of programming that I'd 
> hate to lose.
>
> One more thought - though optional parens and properties are 
> distinct issues, there is some interaction: optional parens 
> reduce the need for @property annotation on read-only 
> properties.
>
>
> Andrei

I'm sorry for answering twice, but I think I understand something 
that I didn't before. I was taking it as a _given_ that optional 
parentheses are here to stay. I was only proposing that the 
compiler give an error when it has two valid choices which both 
compile legally. I'm pretty sure actual cases where you are 
forced to use either "()" or "cast(function)" are going to be 
rare. In most cases, only one version of the code will actually 
compile. Another consideration is that testing for all these 
cases may increase compilation time, whereas silently giving one 
type priority over the other will not.