&gt; you can use a property function as a normal function if you have to.<div><br><div>I must&#39;ve missed that. Do you mean this will become valid?</div><div>struct A{</div><div>  int x_;</div><div>  @property int x(){return x_;}</div>
<div>}</div><div>void main(){</div><div>A a;</div><div>int x1=a.x();</div><div>int x2=a.x;</div><div>}</div><div><br></div><div>&gt; I don&#39;t think that it&#39;s really much of a loss to not be able to use UFCS in situations like that</div>
<div><br></div><div>I keep running into such situations, because phobos reuses function names a lot in different modules, and it&#39;s only going to get worse as phobos size increases.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Jonathan M Davis <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:jmdavisProg@gmx.com" target="_blank">jmdavisProg@gmx.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 09:51:14 Dicebot wrote:<br>
&gt; I think added syntax complexity is not worth the convenience gain.<br>
<br>
</div>I tend to agree. I don&#39;t think that the idea is entirely without merit, but I<br>
don&#39;t think that it&#39;s really much of a loss to not be able to use UFCS in<br>
situations like that. The only situation where it could pose a major problem<br>
would be with properties, but if we&#39;re not going to have strict properties<br>
(and it seems pretty clear at this point that we&#39;re not going to), then it<br>
doesn&#39;t really matter, because you can use a property function as a normal<br>
function if you have to.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
- Jonathan M Davis<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div>