On Monday, 19 November 2012 at 08:23:43 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, November 19, 2012 09:16:29 Rob T wrote:
My guess is that if @property gets enforced, we'll see a lot of
functions with empty parameter lists being defined as @property
for the sole reason to get rid of having to type in the ().
Which completely violates the concept of a property in the
first place. It's
intended to be an abstraction for a variable. Using @property
just to get rid
of parens would be like naming types with verbs instead of
nouns. It's
completely backwards.
- Jonathan M Davis
I very much like the combination of UFCS, ranges and parens-free
style which allows writing code like
iota(0, 1000000).map!(to!string).retro.take(50).retro[10].writeln;
So I like Andrei's idea to force @property only for those
functions where it's absolutely necessary to fight ambiguity.
