We need to add this to the proposal. There are two schools of thought here:

1. Make properties emulate regular variables as much as possible. In that case &a.p is the same as &(a.p), i.e. it applies to the returned value. (One counter-argument here is that properties should seldom return a reference because that breaks encapsulation.)

2. Allow people to do whatever they need to do without much aggravation. In that case &a.p obeys the normal rules of taking a method's address, and &(a.p) applies to the returned value.

I favor (2) and put it in http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP23. Will talk to Walter.