see:

http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.1002.1370829729.13711.digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr@gmx.ch> wrote:

On 05/21/2013 10:37 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 01:31:36 Timothee Cour wrote:

you can use a property function as a normal function if you have to.

I must've missed that. Do you mean this will become valid?
struct A{
int x_;
@property int x(){return x_;}
}
void main(){
A a;
int x1=a.x();
int x2=a.x;
}

I don't think that it's really much of a loss to not be able to use UFCS

in situations like that

I keep running into such situations, because phobos reuses function names a
lot in different modules, and it's only going to get worse as phobos size
increases.

It's not 100% clear what's going to happen with @property, but given the last
major discussion on it, it's quite clear that we're not going to be strictly
enforcing @property, and the -property flag is going to get the boot (I thought
that it was removed from the Phobos build, but it looks like it's still
there). It seems likely that @property will have no effect on getters, and it
may or may not be required on setters. That matter wasn't settled, but it's
very clear that strict property enforcement was not wanted by the majority
(too many people want optional parens), so the situation where a symbol
conflict with a UFCS property makes it impossible to call will be going away
(and it currently only exists when -property is used).

- Jonathan M Davis

No, it is the other way round.

@property void foo(int x){ }
void main(){ foo(2); } // this compiles with -property.

The consensus (modulo details) was that anything that -property implements will not be implemented and anything that -property does not implement will be implemented.