PropertyType

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 5/17/16 1:36 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 17.05.2016 16:24, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>> But of course, if I want to know what type the expression x.foo will
>> yield, I have to do the above.
>
> typeof((()=>x.foo)())

Well, that is likely a valid solution for implementation of 
PropertyType, but I'd never want to have to type that wherever I wanted 
the property return type :)

> (Arguably, function types should not even exist and typeof(x.foo) should
> give you what you want.)

Yes, absolutely. I'm not sure if that's fixable at this point, however.

-Steve