Do we want functions to act as properties, or merely omit parens for ufcs/chaining?

[FG]

On 2013-01-29 15:00, eles wrote:
> well, make those parens omittableonly if the function name is
> followed by a dot.

This is a sound idea for typical cases:
typeof(foo);  // works,
x = a.chain.of.operations();  // looks good and () are informative.

Only the problem with functions returning callable objects remains:
write(foo()()); // ugly but explicit and we know what happens,
foo().write();  // is it the phobos write or a write method
                 // of the object returned by foo?