Suggestion: properties should be treated as 'virtual members variables'

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Marcio" <mqmnews123 at sglebs.com> wrote in message 
news:edka8t$2e0j$1 at digitaldaemon.com...

> Personally I like the Eiffel approach of not requiring () when calling a 
> method that does not need parameters. This allows the implementer of the 
> class to switch between a plain slot or real code that gets run to 
> compute&return, without impacting clients. No modification is needed at 
> the source code level at client classes. Users just say a.foo and the foo 
> implementer can choose the best implementation approach. No complicated 
> notation to define it "as a property" etc.

But this _is_ how D does it right now, i.e.

class Foo
{
    int bar()
    {
        return 4;
    }
}

Foo f = new Foo();
writefln(f.bar);

Or even:

int foo()
{
    return 5;
}

writefln(foo);

We're not happy with this, because of the expressivity that is lost when 
using things like op=.