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

[deadalnix]

On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 09:38:27 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-01-24 22:08, Adam Wilson wrote:
>
>> While I don't approve of Mr. Sabalausky's tone or attitude, 
>> the crux of
>> his argument is logically sound. The problem with @property 
>> isn't
>> @property, it's D's insistence on optional parens. If paren 
>> usage was
>> clearly defined then this would be a non-issue. I would like 
>> to point
>> out that I can't think of another systems/general purpose 
>> language that
>> has an calling syntax specification as vague and convoluted as 
>> D's. C#'s
>> is brutally simple. Java's is brutally simple. In C/C++ 
>> everything is a
>> function or field, so, brutally simple.
>>
>> Make D's calling syntax simpler, end optional parens!
>
> There are many languages that allow optional parentheses when 
> calling a function. Ruby, CoffeeScript and Groovy to mention a 
> few.

 From what I see on CofeeScript website, it has a VERY different 
semantic than D on function.