support UFCS with fully qualified function names (was in "digitalmars.D.learn")

[Timon Gehr]

On 05/21/2013 10:37 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 01:31:36 Timothee Cour wrote:
>>> you can use a property function as a normal function if you have to.
>>
>> I must've missed that. Do you mean this will become valid?
>> struct A{
>>    int x_;
>>    @property int x(){return x_;}
>> }
>> void main(){
>> A a;
>> int x1=a.x();
>> int x2=a.x;
>> }
>>
>>> I don't think that it's really much of a loss to not be able to use UFCS
>>
>> in situations like that
>>
>> I keep running into such situations, because phobos reuses function names a
>> lot in different modules, and it's only going to get worse as phobos size
>> increases.
>
> It's not 100% clear what's going to happen with @property, but given the last
> major discussion on it, it's quite clear that we're not going to be strictly
> enforcing @property, and the -property flag is going to get the boot (I thought
> that it was removed from the Phobos build, but it looks like it's still
> there). It seems likely that @property will have no effect on getters, and it
> may or may not be required on setters. That matter wasn't settled, but it's
> very clear that strict property enforcement was not wanted by the majority
> (too many people want optional parens), so the situation where a symbol
> conflict with a UFCS property makes it impossible to call will be going away
> (and it currently only exists when -property is used).
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>

No, it is the other way round.

@property void foo(int x){ }
void main(){ foo(2); } // this compiles with -property.

The consensus (modulo details) was that anything that -property 
implements will not be implemented and anything that -property does not 
implement will be implemented.