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

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 19:59:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> 2. I have tried to add @property appropriately in Phobos, in 
> particular for ranges:

These are examples of why I'm firmly in the pro-optional 
parenthesis camp. With them, stuff like this becomes irrelevant; 
it works either way.

But, remember, the problem @property needs to solve is none of 
this. There's no pressing reason to put it on range functions.


My view is @property maybe somewhat rare in usage: if in doubt, 
do NOT use it. But there's cases where there is no doubt, and we 
don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater there.


One example where I'd love property: a dynamic object. Suppose we 
extend Variant to work Javascript style:

Variant v;

v.prop = function() { };

v.prop(); // we expect this to call the function, not return a 
reference to it


That would be an @property.... range.popFront doesn't need to be. 
It works fine with the existing optional parenthesis rule.