On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 16:29:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
So you DO make a difference between setters and getters.
Yes, sure. But I do not need new keywords for that.
funName(t) is valid if funName returns a delegate. The compiler shouldn't even try to interpret funName(...) as a call of funName.
Yes, I have finally understood how it is intended to work. I just do not like complexity with re-writing funName(t) as funName()(t) and hidden struct creation from function symbols. I cheer any compiling restrictions, but overall type system should be as transparent as possible for normal cases. Like brutal simplicity of my proposal better :)
But it is an interesting approach, thank you for the insight.
