Function calls

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Pelle Månsson" <pelle.mansson at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:hjt46j$5qt$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> I don't understand what any of this would improve. Is the byLine example 
>> less readable without the ()? Is it more bug prone?
>>
>> The only thing achieved as I can see is that every class designer makes up 
>> his own rules about which functions are property and which are not. If 
>> this is somehow enforced, it will become a guessing game about how to call 
>> no-argument functions. For what?
> 
> Class "Foo" has member "bar". Is "bar" a member variable or a member 
> function? Can you set it? Does it require arguments? You don't know, do you? 
> It's a guessing game.
> 
> To the caller, *properties are not functions*! I don't understand why we 
> keep having to go in circles on this. They are data. Data, data, data. Not 
> functions. Data. "Oh, but no, they're *implemented* as functions!" Who gives 
> a crap? That's *implementation*. They're data. Data, data, data. With the 
> proposal, if I use a class, that class has data and functions. Not "member 
> variables, functions called with parens, and functions called without 
> parens." Just data and functions. That's it. Data and functions.
> 
> So if this is enforced, and you have a function, how do you call it? *With 
> parens*! Why? Because it's a fucking function and functions are fucking 
> called with parens! For god's sake, C# has had this for years, and nobody 
> ever wonders "Do I use parens?" in C#, because if you're going to use 
> something, you already know damn well if it's a function or data. Because if 
> you don't know what the hell it is, you can't f***** make sensible use of it 
> anyway.

Relax, we're all on the same boat. Unfortunately, your view that it's 
all functions and data is simplistic - it works well only when we talk 
about returning simple data types. I, too, wish it were that simple.

Andrei