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

[Chad Joan]

On 01/28/2013 08:59 PM, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 00:56:41 UTC, Chad Joan wrote:
>> snip
>>
>> 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;
>>
>> snip
>
> I have been following the properties discussion a bit and lack
> the experience to really comment on much. However, looking at
> your posting I couldn't help but ask one question.
>
> You state that not allowing at statement like:
>
> 2.bar = 3;
>
> is a 'limitation'. Was 'limitation' really the word you were
> looking for?
> I find such code rather baffling. Perhaps it has valuable uses
> somewhere, which is why I am asking.
>
> It sort of reminds me of Python where you can do something like:
>
> ' '.join( list_of_strings )
>
> which is very cute and all, but the following, rather mundane
> function call would do a better job of conveying to the reader
> what is going on, using the same number of keystrokes:
>
> join( list_of_strings, ' ')
>
> Craig

I mean limitation in the mathematical sense.

It's a combination of syntax elements that are valid in current D, but 
would no longer be valid if the D community were to desire a properties 
solution that includes this condition.

If no one is harmed by this limitation, then it is still a "limitation", 
and also a /useful/ limitation.