Property discussion wrap-up

[Dicebot]

On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 02:10:48 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> OK, let me restate that, as it was probably too strong.
>
> We got to be pedantic on the vocabulary used. We are trying to 
> define very precise stuffs. We cannot define anything with 
> imprecise vocabulary.
>
> Sorry for the intellectual dishonesty part, that was too much.

Well, why not leave formal vocabulary to DIPs and use wiki to 
brainstorm a bit? In any case, I really wonder how callable 
structs/classes fit the big picture. Intuitively I would like to 
behave them as functions in the similar way properties behave 
like data. But is that really feasible?