Is [] mandatory for array operations?

[Robert Jacques]

On Fri, 07 May 2010 11:11:47 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:08:22 -0400, Robert Jacques <sandford at jhu.edu>  
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 May 2010 16:19:09 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>> There are several compiler bugs relating to array operations, and  
>>>>>>> almost all relate to this issue. I'd like to fix them, but I need  
>>>>>>> to know which way it is supposed to work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The [] should be required. I worry that otherwise there will be  
>>>>>> ambiguous cases that will cause trouble.
>>>>> Excellent.
>>>>  Glad we agree. An example is the C hack where if foo is a function,  
>>>> then &foo as well as foo mean the address of the function. This  
>>>> little ambiguity, originally meant as a convenience, has caused much  
>>>> grief.
>>>
>>> In the same vein, probably it's time to bite the bullet and require  
>>> @property for parens-less function calls.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> Disagreed. I've really come to enjoy parens-less coding, though I know  
>> others don't like it. But today both camps can write in their preferred  
>> style and write libraries for each other. Either deciding on an opt-in  
>> (@property) or opt-out(@!property) basis seems likely to A) kill the  
>> other programming style or B) lead to a bunch of synaptic load on the  
>> programmer as they try to remember which style each class uses.
>
> As I've said before, I think a possible compromise to this is to allow  
> paren-less function calls when the return type is void.  These functions  
> cannot be misinterpreted as properties.
>
> I won't go over the other points again :)
>
> -Steve

One of the major uses of paren-less functions is chaining, which always  
return typeof(this), not void.