@property (again)

[John Colvin]

On Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 03:14:30 UTC, Manu wrote:
> It would be nice to have a commitment on @property.
> Currently, () is optional on all functions, and @property means 
> nothing.
> I personally think () should not be optional, and @property 
> should require
> that () is not present (ie, @property has meaning).
>
> This is annoying:
>   alias F = function();
>
>   @property F myProperty() { return f; }
>
>   Then we have this confusing situation:
>     myProperty(); // am I calling the property, or am I calling 
> the
> function the property returns?

The latter. Property should be enforced properly.

> This comes up all the time, and it really grates my nerves.
> Suggest; remove @property, or make it do what it's supposed to 
> do.


If you combine:

1) enforced property syntax, no parens allowed

2) & always applies to a parenthesis-less function, not it's 
result

3) properties decay to normal functions when they have their 
address taken

4) For template params: pass function symbol if possible, 
otherwise evaluate and pass the result.

then we have a solved problem, while allowing people to keep 
their nice pretty ()-less UFCS chains, no?