@property needed or not needed?

[Regan Heath]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:26:15 -0000, Adam D. Ruppe  
<destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 at 12:44:44 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> Should this be allowed for functions that isn't marked with @property:
>>
>> foo = 3;
>
> Yes. We should *only* be changing the way @property is implemented.  
> (Namely, actually implementing it!)
>
> Don't want to break existing code. The new changes must be opt in.

Usually I'd agree but this is a case of a wart we should just remove IMO.   
The fix for breaking cases is simple, add @property.

> If there's both an @property setter and a regular function, the property  
> should be used here.

Agreed.  But it's waay clearer whats going on if @property is required to  
call functions using this syntax.

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/