On 1/24/13 7:13 AM, Bernard Helyer wrote:
On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 08:35:01 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
This has turned into a monster. We've taken 2 or 3 wrong turns somewhere.
Perhaps we should revert to a simple set of rules.
1. Empty parens are optional. If there is an ambiguity with the return
value taking (), the () go on the return value.
2. the:
f = g
rewrite to:
f(g)
only happens if f is a function that only has overloads for () and
(one argument). No variadics.
3. Parens are required for calling delegates or function pointers.
4. No more @property.
This is lazy design, plain and simple. You say it's turned into
a monster, but @property, at its core, is simpler than the heuristics
you've demonstrated here. To my mind, @property, properly implemented
is simple:
@property functions may be called with no parens or with assignment as
the singular argument. Non @property functions may not.
There. No complications. The only complications come from D's history.
And then you want to turn it back? This seems a terrible idea -- the
deed is done, pull the trigger. Make @property mandatory for property
functions.
No. The complications come from the fact that (a) nobody could agree
what should be a @property and what shouldn't; (b) @property adds noise
for everybody for the sake of a corner case (functions returning
delegates); (c) the @property discipline failed to align itself in any
way with better code quality.
Andrei
