@property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/24/13 6:50 AM, mist wrote:
> I am probably I minority here but I liked the most strict -property
> version and it made a lot of sense to me. Rationale is simple:
> some().ufcs().chaining(); - this is just a minor syntax inconvenience

It becomes way uglier with templates: 
some!(e1)().ufcs!(e2)().chaining!(e3)(). In fact look at the code 
written by Nick in _favor_ of the parens. Self-destruction at its finest.

> anything; - this drives me crazy, there is no way to understand if this

I was amazed at how quickly I got used to it.

> a no-op statement variable of function call with some side-effect
> I'd really like to have all function types to be obliged to use () and
> use property syntax only to those of property semantics (no side-effect
> variable getter/setter)
>
> But looking at other comments this does not seem popular :( Well, I can
> only hope for something simple and non-revolutionary then.

You'll still be able to use parens.


Andrei