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

[Jesse Phillips]

On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 08:35:01 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> 1. Empty parens are optional. If there is an ambiguity with the 
> return value taking (), the () go on the return value.

As mentioned, this seems dangerous. I'd suggest requiring when 
there is ambiguity. It still has generic problems, but it will 
never be silent.

> 4. No more @property.

I'm on the side that would miss optional parens if they died. In 
would be nice if @property actually made a function behave like a 
field.

foo += bar;

It seems there are lots of complications around this? So yes kill 
@property.

On another note,

To properly correct this situation we will break code. So before 
you get started be sure to try out the new feature preview 
release approach :)