On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:44:20 +0000 (UTC) trav...@phare.normalesup.org (Christophe Travert) wrote:
> "Petr Janda" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172727), a écrit : > > On Thursday, 19 July 2012 at 14:31:53 UTC, > > trav...@phare.normalesup.org (Christophe Travert) wrote: > >> "q66" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172716), a écrit : > >>> (so instead of calling a(b(c(d(e(f))))) you can just call > >>> a.b.c.d.e.f()) > >> > >> rather f.e.d.c.b.a, if you omit the empty parenthesis after > >> each letter > >> (but f). > > > > Ok, but the empty parenthesis is is important, it tells you about > > whether it's a an object or a function. > > > > It's another thing I hate about Ruby is that a parenthesis > > enforcement is weak. > > property (functions that behaves like fields) don't require > empty parenthesis. This feature has been extended to all function, > leading to the current situation. Some people would like this to > disappear, and enforce strict property. That's already happening. It's just that for the moment you have to pass -property into DMD. Then it'll enforce "Function calls always need parens, propertied always omit parens". Supposedly, this behavior will become the default at some point.
