[phobos] Time to get ready for the next release

[Robert Jacques]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:45:09 -0400, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>  
wrote:

>> As I've said before, we really need to decide whether @property has  
>> loose
>> or strict semantics. Loose semantics means that non- at property functions
>> would still be callable without (), etc but @property functions wouldn't
>> be allowed to have ()s. Frankly, I hate @property, want to to have as
>> little effect as possible, like the flexibility of being able to call  
>> the
>> same function both ways, and would have a lot of code break if this were
>> taken away, so my vote is loose semantics.
>
> TDPL specifically gives it strict semantics. @property functions must be
> called without parens, and non- at property functions must be called with  
> them.
> So, if we want to go with loose semantics, then TDPL will need to be  
> changed.
>
> Personally, I don't see much point to @property if its semantics are  
> loose.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

The point of @property, and the reason it was included in the language at  
all, was to provide property syntax to the corner case of a returning a  
zero-argument delegate from a function. That's all. That was the only  
argument which was considered strong enough out of the many forum  
discussions to warrant language status. Furthermore, @property was  
explicitly defined at the time as having loose semantics. Regarding TDPL,  
Andrei has expressed serious concerns with going whole-hog @property since  
getting more experience with actually using it, so I don't feel that TDPL  
is a strong guideline.

My point is that a strict interpretation of @property has not seriously  
been discussed in the D community, and that any decision made here needs  
to be elevated to the D newsgroup before implementation.

My position comes down on the side of loose semantics with no method of  
strict enforcement, optional or otherwise.