On Thursday, January 24, 2013 13:08:08 Adam Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:58:41 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1/24/13 3:45 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:51:32 -0500 > >> Andrei Alexandrescu<[email protected]> wrote: > >> No, you merely came up with *some* specific cherry-picked examples that > >> sparked *some* debate (with most of the disagreing coming from > >> you). > > > > I simply mentioned three reasons that came to mind. > > > > Andrei > > While I don't approve of Mr. Sabalausky's tone or attitude,
He does have a tendancy to get out of hand in that regard. > the crux of > his argument is logically sound. The problem with @property isn't > @property, it's D's insistence on optional parens. If paren usage was > clearly defined then this would be a non-issue. I would like to point out > that I can't think of another systems/general purpose language that has an > calling syntax specification as vague and convoluted as D's. C#'s is > brutally simple. Java's is brutally simple. In C/C++ everything is a > function or field, so, brutally simple. > > Make D's calling syntax simpler, end optional parens! Exactly. That's what _should_ have happened. We wouldn't have all of these problems if we'd just gone with a C#-esque property design and never had optional parens. Unfortunately however, optional parens are so popular for at least some use cases (e.g. UFCS), that I don't think that there's much chance of them going away. - Jonathan M Davis
