Re: @property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

[Iain Buclaw]

On 24 January 2013 08:34, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> This has turned into a monster. We've taken 2 or 3 wrong turns somewhere.
>
> Perhaps we should revert to a simple set of rules.
>
> 1. Empty parens are optional. If there is an ambiguity with the return
> value taking (), the () go on the return value.
>
> 2. the:
>    f = g
> rewrite to:
>    f(g)
> only happens if f is a function that only has overloads for () and (one
> argument). No variadics.
>
> 3. Parens are required for calling delegates or function pointers.
>
> 4. No more @property.
>


As much as I want to agree, I also feel this comes as too little, too late
to come to this conclusion now.


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';