"Steven Schveighoffer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > I don't think this means we should take this one exception to invalidate > the whole idea of separating function from property, but maybe there could > be ways to annotate such functions as callable both ways. I'm sure the > number of functions that have this property is few such that the pain of > annotating "call this both ways" is minimial. Or else, allow defining a > property and a function with the same name (*gulp*).
Or just decree "split is a property" and be done with it. > One thing is for certain -- I'd rather have to deal with this quandry as > an author of code than deal with the ambiguity of the current design as a > user of code. Amen to that!
