@property (again)

[John Colvin]

On Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 14:19:22 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 13:04:21 UTC, John Colvin 
> wrote:
>> 3) properties decay to normal functions when they have their 
>> address taken
>>
> Is there some reason why we _need_ to be able to take the 
> address of properties?  I've yet to see a good argument in 
> favour of it, and I've seen several against.  I think that 
> whole idea is a misfeature that won't be missed.
>
> -Wyatt

Are there any arguments against it within the context of the 
proposal i'm making? At the very least the obvious problems 
disappear.

If the consensus was that the address of a property was an 
unnecessary concept then it could be disallowed and point 3) of 
my list disregarded. The rest stands separate from this issue.