While we're lynching features, how bout' them omittable parens?

[Jesse Phillips]

On Tue, 19 May 2009 11:12:13 -0300, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

> 
> class C
> {
> 	int no_prop() { return 1; }
> 	property int prop() { return 2; }
> }
> 
> C c = new C;
> int x = c.no_prop; // error
> x = x.prop; // ok
> 
> "property" should imply "pure".

I actually wouldn't have an issue with this. And if we could get the 
benefit Ary pointed out, I'd say it would be worth it.