On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 00:43:46 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
The problem is that the moment we start talking about @property the optional parens people (colloquially referred to henceforth as "your side") start jumping in and attacking us about how removing optional parens would make your sides lives utter misery.
Well, I'd hope @property could give the compiler enough information to give syntax that matches fields. That hasn't happened yet so I don't see it worth keeping. And if the @property syntax has to be changed from a function I'd consider it a failure too.
That said many that want @property, want optional parens to die, as shown by your side comment that follows.
(Personally, i'd beg to differ, I work with C# UFCS every, freaking, day. I don't even notice the extra parens any more. But most importantly, the syntax is ambiguous to neither the compiler or myself, I know at a subconscious level what I am looking at.)
I haven't had to deal with reading much other peoples code in D or Ruby, so I don't have much information on the readability challenges from one side or the other, but so far my experience has been that it doesn't matter. And while it is a hot topic, D has had it for a long time and no real evidence it is a big problem has risen. (Only the return a delegate from a function)
