@property

[Jesse Phillips]

Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

> Save is not as obvious, but that's because the author decided the name  
> without considering whether it should be a property.  If it should be  
> considered a property, it should be a noun (not a hard rule, but it makes  
> more sense that way).  I'd say something like 'copy' would look better as  
> a property.  But IMO, save provides almost no utility so that leads to it  
> being hard to name.  Blaming property syntax is not the way out.

Personally I think of a property as something that makes sense for you to "get" something and to "set" something. Sure you might provide only one of those options to control interaction, but I have a hard time seeing 'copy' as a property since you wouldn't want to write:

a.copy = "this is a copy of a";

Now, on the other side of things, calling functions without parenthesis. I don't have many issues with this except these points, and neither of these have been resolved with the current situation.

* Allows ambiguous-looking code:
	
    int delegate() foo() {
    	return delegate int(){ return 5; };
    }
    
    // Is this an int or a delegate?
    auto x = foo();
    
    // Is this a reference to foo, or a reference to the delegate returned by foo?
    auto y = &foo;

* Cannot use +=, -=, etc.