On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:14:21 -0500 Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/23/13 1:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > Having the *caller* decide whether something is a property or not > > makes as much sense as having the caller decide the function's name, > > signature and semantics. > > No. The caller does get to decide a variety of syntactic aspects of > the invocation. > Yes, but it's unfortunate that includes a part of the syntax that carries semantic/conceptual implications for something (action or data) that is already *inherently* determined by writer of the *callee*. > > If anything, that's an issue with template syntax, it has nothing > > to do with properties, let alone the beloved practice of abusing > > properties for the sake of things that clearly are not properties. > > The implied assumption here is that if it doesn't have parens it's a > property. Well it's a function call. > Right, it's a function call. So what in the world do we gain by allowing the caller to make it look like something it isn't? Nothing.
