== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article > Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > "Pelle Månsson" <pelle.mans...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:hjv9sf$1n5...@digitalmars.com... > >> On 01/29/2010 07:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > >>> Note in the anecdote above, both users would have > >>> been satisfied if you could *only* call empty without parentheses. > >>> > >> That's a good point. The writeln = 3; is also a good point. :) > >> > >> What I'm trying to defend is the ability to call non-property functions > >> without the parens. > >> > >> I find this: > >> > >> array.stable_sort; > >> file.detach; > >> range.popFront; > >> > >> to look less noisy, clearer and just plain sexier than the respective > >> versions with the parens. > > > > To me, at a glance, it looks like a series of no-ops. Like "x; y; z;". Only > > upon closer inspection of the names does it become apperent that functions > > are actually being called. > > > > > A consequence of this discussion is that the built-in properties > .reverse and .sort MUST be renamed. (Removal would be an acceptable form > of renaming IMHO).
Yea, can anyone even come up with a good Devil's Advocate argument in favor of leaving these in? The best one I can think of is that, since arrays in D are builtin, the basic functionality for them should also be builtin so they feel "first-class". This is a pretty weak argument. The builtins made sense early on, but now they are slow, inflexible and not substantially easier to use than the std.algorithm functions.
