Why non-@property functions don't need parentheses

[%u]

Hi,

I was wondering, why are we allowed to omit parentheses when calling functions
with no arguments, when they are not @properties? Is there a good reason for
relaxing the language rules like this?

Thanks!

Re: Why non-@property functions don't need parentheses

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Sunday 06 February 2011 20:38:29 %u wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering, why are we allowed to omit parentheses when calling
> functions with no arguments, when they are not @properties? Is there a
> good reason for relaxing the language rules like this?

Because the compiler is not in line with TDPL yet. It used to be that @property 
didn't even exist and _all_ functions which returned a value and took no 
parameters could be used as a getter property and _all_ functions which 
returned 
void and took a single value could be used as a setter property. @property was 
added so that it could be better controlled. However, while @property has been 
added, the compiler has yet to be changed to enforce that @property functions 
are called without parens and that non-@property functions are called with 
them. 
It will be fixed at some point, but it hasn't been yet.

- Jonathan M Davis

Re: Why non-@property functions don't need parentheses

[Simen kjaeraas]

%u  wrote:


Hi,

I was wondering, why are we allowed to omit parentheses when calling  
functions
with no arguments, when they are not @properties? Is there a good reason  
for

relaxing the language rules like this?


This behavior is deprecated, but other features have had a higher priority
than removing features that do not cause big trouble. :p


--
Simen

Re: Why non-@property functions don't need parentheses

[%u]

> It will be fixed at some point, but it hasn't been yet.

Oh cool, all right; thanks!