On Thursday, January 24, 2013 15:14:36 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 1/24/13 2:26 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:30:46 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >> On 1/24/13 4:28 AM, monarch_dodra wrote: > >>> We actually have one, which I think I agree with: > >>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP21 > >> > >> Walter convinced me last night that eliminating @property is more > >> sensible. > > > > Well, that's bad news. It's bad enough that @property hasn't been properly > > sorted out, but getting rid of it completely disregards the problems that > > it's trying to solve. Getting rid of @property would be a horrible move > > IMHO. > No, the idea is to use better inference for the cases in which @property > would be appropriate. > > So we are looking at _changing_ the language, not simply ignoring @property.
Then what do you mean to do with @property? Regardless of what we do with paren-less function calls, I think that it's important to have explicit properties - particularly when you consider enhancement requests such as http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8006 (which we probably should have implemented ages ago). - Jonathan M Davis
