Revised RFC on range design for D2

[KennyTM~]

Jason House wrote:
> KennyTM~ Wrote:
> 
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
>>> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> There is no ambiguity either case. You evaluate Stdout.newline. The
>>>>> evaluation yields a value of some type. Then you evaluate formatln against
>>>>> that value.
>>>> OK, then tell me what this does:
>>>>
>>>> x.y.z();
>>>>
>>>> Is y a property/field of x or a function call with no args?  I see a benefit
>>>> to being able to understand a line of code without requiring lots of extra
>>>> context.  I have to do less lookups of the source of a function or property.
>>> The problem with this argument is that unless you disallow properties
>>> altogether, you still won't know whether y is actually a field or a
>>> call to a property method without looking it up.
>>>
>>> --bb
>> I think the distinction of with and without () is pretty stylistic, 
>> because the same argument can even be applied to operator overloading 
>> (does a=b means pointing the variable a to b, or calling a.opAssign(b)?)
>>
>> For me, I would use () if the function do modify the object itself.
>>
> 
> I assume you'd also want parens if the function modified global state? If so, I believe you'd want parens with all impure member function calls.

Right. Therefore if I were to implement property getters I would require 
it as an immutable (or at least const) method itself.

I don't know what's the use of global functions that is pure AND does 
not take any input.

> Obviously, we're talking about property getters and not setters. I was told once already that such things are off topic :) I think it's relevant to the spirit of the conversation.