Revised RFC on range design for D2

[Jason House]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 
> I think we all agree that there are some annoyances related to the whole
> property business, among which the main one is:
> 
> writeln = 4;
> 
> That is quite indefensible :o|. I consider the others rather minor, but
> that's just a personal opinion.
> 
> How about this. Maybe if we attacked this annoyance in particular, that
> would be a large bang for the buck without a landslide change in the
> compiler. We only need some way to inform the compiler, "yes, it's ok to
> call a.b(c) as a.b = c". Ideas?

That seems like a bad idea if it allows a forgetful/lazy/overworked library
writer to cause users to be unable to use property syntax in natural cases. 
I'd say explicit forbidding of property syntax is a better idea.

Based on some people's view of properties, allowing property get syntax for
pure functions would make a lot of sense.  Others would hate that.  I'm not
sure if restricting users would be all that popular.  It may be better
placed in some kind of lint tool.