Revised RFC on range design for D2

[Bruno Medeiros]

Sergey Gromov wrote:
> In article <gbgpak$2q10$1 at digitalmars.com>, 
> brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail says...
>> Also, some more on important bike shed issues:
>>      for (; !src.done; src.next)
>>      {
>>          tgt.put(src.head);
>>      }
>>
>> As a matter of coding style conventions, I would say that using the 
>> implicit property function call feature on a function that changes state 
>> is *bad* style, and surely hope the community would agree on that.
>> So "src.next" would be must better as "src.next()" as "src.next" really 
>> just makes me cringe.
> 
> I think that property function call feature in general adds an 
> unnecessary ambiguity to the language.  I'd prefer functions to be 
> callable only with regular function call syntax, and properties be 
> usable only with member access syntax.  The same stands for 'unified 
> function call' feature: if you want to inject a method into an 'array of 
> chars' class you do so explicitly, and only the member call syntax is 
> allowed on that method.  Otherwise code tends to become ambiguous and 
> unreadable.

Yes, I full agree, as many others do, as this has been discussed before 
(the latest discussion: 
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Omittable_parens_is_an_evil_73881.html)
But that didn't seem to convince any of the higher-ups, so I was hopping 
to at least have the feature used more sensibly (ie, not being used in 
functions that are not intended to emulate properties).

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D