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

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 03:34:42 -0500, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> This has turned into a monster. We've taken 2 or 3 wrong turns somewhere.
>
> Perhaps we should revert to a simple set of rules.
>
> 1. Empty parens are optional. If there is an ambiguity with the return  
> value taking (), the () go on the return value.
>
> 2. the:
>     f = g
> rewrite to:
>     f(g)
> only happens if f is a function that only has overloads for () and (one  
> argument). No variadics.
>
> 3. Parens are required for calling delegates or function pointers.
>
> 4. No more @property.

Disagree.  @property serves a very good purpose -- specifying intent.  If  
the intention of a function is to be used as a dynamic field, use  
@property, otherwise do not.

Whether or not parentheses should be required on non- at property functions,  
I've given up that struggle.  It's not too terrible, and the benefits are  
difficult to argue against.

But please, please, PLEASE do not let normal functions be called as  
setters.  If we get rid of @property, we are back to this.  Your simple  
requirements will leave too many functions open to abuse.  When you take  
away @property, you take away the expression power of an API designer.

I contend that the issue with @property was that it was half-implemented.   
When a half-implemented feature is used for 4 years, it leads to confusion  
when it doesn't work as specified.

In other words, we asked you to build a fence.  You built one, but didn't  
finish it, left a gaping hole.  Then you complain about how the fence was  
useless.

I would be satisfied with Kenji's implementation.  As I understand it:

@property on a getter would mean implicit calling of the function.
@property on a setter would mean calling x = y as x(y).
@property functions could not be called like normal functions.
Parentheses are optional on normal no-arg functions when used as getters.
Normal single arg or variadic functions are NOT ALLOWED to be used as  
setters.

Do it.  I think 99% of the people here would be OK with this.

-Steve