https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17474
--- Comment #11 from Eyal <e...@weka.io> --- (In reply to anonymous4 from comment #10) > (In reply to Eyal from comment #8) > > Requiring @property on a for a=b to invoke a(b) sounds much more reasonable > > than the opposite. > > > > I don't see how a=b invoking a(b) when a isn't a @property is justifiable. > > It reduces code littering (and it's not easier to check). UFCS relies on > property syntax too. What code littering does it reduce? @property is not littering, it is informative. UCFS doesn't rely on property syntax, lack of parenthesis relies on property syntax - but not on *setter* syntax, just *getter*. So I repeat: There is no justification for x=y calling x(y) when x is not a @property. --
