Just where has this language gone wrong?

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:44:20 +0000 (UTC)
travert at phare.normalesup.org (Christophe Travert) wrote:

> "Petr Janda" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172727), a écrit :
> > On Thursday, 19 July 2012 at 14:31:53 UTC, 
> > travert at phare.normalesup.org (Christophe Travert) wrote:
> >> "q66" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172716), a écrit :
> >>> (so instead of calling a(b(c(d(e(f))))) you can just call 
> >>> a.b.c.d.e.f())
> >>
> >> rather f.e.d.c.b.a, if you omit the empty parenthesis after 
> >> each letter
> >> (but f).
> > 
> > Ok, but the empty parenthesis is is important, it tells you about 
> > whether it's a an object or a function.
> > 
> > It's another thing I hate about Ruby is that a parenthesis 
> > enforcement is weak.
> 
> property (functions that behaves like fields) don't require 
> empty parenthesis. This feature has been extended to all function, 
> leading to the current situation. Some people would like this to 
> disappear, and enforce strict property.

That's already happening. It's just that for the moment you have to
pass -property into DMD. Then it'll enforce "Function calls always need
parens, propertied always omit parens". Supposedly, this behavior will
become the default at some point.