Do we want functions to act as properties, or merely omit parens for ufcs/chaining?

[Chad Joan]

Would everyone be able to agree to only use @property functions as 
properties?  This would still allow omittable parens as a way to make 
call-chaining and ufcs nicer.

The limitation this imposes is that
   void foo(int a) {...}
   void bar(int a, int b) {...}
cannot be called in this way:
   foo = 2;
   2.bar = 3;

As a consequence, everyone's favorite
   writeln = "lolwut";
does not compile.

What is still allowed:
   int foo() {...}
   void @property bar(int a) {...}
   ...
   int x = foo;
   bar = x;
   auto r = lets.chain!(q).some.stuff;

Although this seems like a distinction that's been discussed, I could 
never really tell if there was consensus on this.

Admittedly, I stopped following the "@property needed or not needed?" 
discussion halfway through.

As someone who has taken a stab at doing semantic property rewriting, I 
think this is a limitation that could potentially help us in the long 
run.  It simplifies detection of properties: properties are only the 
things explicitly marked as such, and functions with omitted parens can 
follow a simpler codepath that the in-depth semantic rewrites can safely 
ignore.