@property needed or not needed?

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 at 19:12:58 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 at 19:06:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
> wrote:
>> Given the fact that this subject is extremely devisive, I 
>> suspect that the
>> best that we can hope for at this point is for lax property 
>> enforcement
>
> @property shouldn't be about enforcement. This is the 
> fundamental flaw in the -property switch. While I think you and 
> I are talking about the same goal, this is an important 
> distinction to make: the fix isn't syntax. It is a semantic 
> rewrite.
>
> After referencing a property is rewritten to be a call, the 
> syntax will just work:
>
> @property int foo() {}
>
> int a = foo(); // the error here is NOT "you must not use () on 
> properties". It is "type int is not callable"
>
>

Yes

>
> This is something that's bothered me about the @property debate 
> since day one: we spend all this time talking about syntax.... 
> but that's a side effect, not the core question.

+1