2013/2/4 Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>

Couldn't AddressOf use "&(" + exp + ")"?

Yes. It's enough. I wanted to explain that "we should treat address-expression carefully".

I thought more about this. The problem remains even without @property, due to optional parens in function invocation. Consider:

ref int fun() { ... }
auto p1 = &fun;
auto p2 = &(fun);
auto p3 = &(fun());

What are the types of the three? The optional parens in invocation require some disambiguation. I think the sensible disambiguation is to have &fun take the address of fun and the other two take the address of fun's result.

Agreed.

I would agree restricting the properties, but requiring a __trait to take the address of a regular function or method seems overkill.

Fully agreed.

Although it looks strange and unstable, adding new distinction of semantics between &foo and &(foo) has no ambiguity.

I think this is necessary feature for the D's function and property semantics.

Kenji Hara