@property (again)

[Manu]

On 21 November 2013 13:27, Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 03:14:30 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> I personally think () should not be optional
>>
>
> No.


How is it ever an advantage to syntactically allow visual confusion between
a function call and a variable?


   Then we have this confusing situation:
>>     myProperty(); // am I calling the property, or am I calling the
>> function the property returns?
>>
>
> Yes, this case is the whole reason @property was added in the first place!
> How many years has it been now with the half-assed implementation?
>
> We can and should fix this without any other arguments about optional
> parenthesis.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20131121/9cbd713f/attachment.html>