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

[eles]

On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 00:56:41 UTC, Chad Joan wrote:
> Would everyone be able to agree to only use @property functions 
> as properties?

I think @property-ies should not be taken for functions... at 
least conceptually.

I think the root reason why such confusion is the bad choice that 
D made in the beginning, to define properties with the same 
syntax as functions, while properties should be rather an 
extensions of the variable concept, not of the functions concept.

For the programmer using a property, he should not even be aware 
that it is a function (or a property). He should think that it is 
a variable and that's all.

The C# syntax is closer to this approach. More, it is strongly 
linking the code (of both the getter and the setter) with the 
considered property. In D, this link is quite loose.

Let me turn the table: why not thinking about the property as a 
variable that, optionally (start another UFCS/opt-parens 
discussion here...) accept the syntax:

v(2);

(besides the obvious v=2). This happens in C++ where you can 
define either int x= 3; either int x(3).

More confusing?