hiding a class property behind a method

[francesco cattoglio]

On Saturday, 22 February 2014 at 22:42:24 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
> The problem isn't about optional parenthesis or properties. 
> It's the fact that
> you can redefine a symbol to be something entierly different, 
> and that this
> difference will only be seen if you are looking at the symbol 
> through the
> "correct" type.
You are right. I thought that if we had forced parenthesis, the 
compiler would at least be able to understand what symbol you 
were referring to, but this is actually not the case.