Why is this possible? Just had a bug because of it. Would be preferable that you have to state @property. From what I can see the @property is optional.

int main(string[] argv)
{
	int a()
	{
		return 1;
	}

	int b = a;

	return 0;
}

On 21-04-2012 05:26, Stian Pedersen wrote:
> Why is this possible? Just had a bug because of it. Would be preferable
> that you have to state @property. From what I can see the @property is
> optional.
>
> int main(string[] argv)
> {
> int a()
> {
> return 1;
> }
>
> int b = a;
>
> return 0;
> }

Just build with -property.

-- 
- Alex

On Saturday, April 21, 2012 05:26:21 Stian Pedersen wrote:
> Why is this possible? Just had a bug because of it. Would be preferable that you have to state @property. From what I can see the @property is optional.
> 
> int main(string[] argv)
> {
> 	int a()
> 	{
> 		return 1;
> 	}
> 
> 	int b = a;
> 
> 	return 0;
> }

It predates @property. Previously, there was no @property, and pretty much any function which would qualify as a property function colud be called with or without parens. Eventually, only functions which are marked @property will be able to be called without parens, and all functions with @property will _have_ to be called without parens. But that's being phased in rather than being changed immediately and breaking a lot of existing code (it also gives the compiler the chance to get its property enforcement bugs ironed out). For now, if you compile with -property, that will enable strict property enforcement. Later, it will always be enforced, but not yet.

- Jonathan M Davis

Sounds good. Not always funny having to support backwards compatibility.