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

[mist]

On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 17:49:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> 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.

I can hardly see any problems in your code sample. Syntax 
inconvenience means nothing when compared to semantic 
inconvenience. It is just matter of visual preferences after all, 
you can get used to it quite fast.

>
>> anything; - this drives me crazy, there is no way to 
>> understand if this
>
> I was amazed at how quickly I got used to it.

> ...

>
> You'll still be able to use parens.
>
>
> Andrei

You see, contrary to UFCS chaining this is not habit or syntax 
issue. It is semantic one - I am loosing an ability to distinct 
data access from function call by simply looking at code. There 
is nothing I can get used to - in a sane design I have this info, 
in D I do not. You have been just shown a few very good examples 
regarding functions, returning delegates - it is exactly the case 
where it shines.

Yes, I am able to use parens, but in _my_ code I also do not need 
-property or anything - I am C++ programmer after all, I can 
discipline myself to certain code style even without compiler 
help. But writing generic code and reading one of others... I am 
glad I have not had to do any high-order function generic 
processing yet.