On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 03:15:55 UTC, Mike Bierlee wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 02:17:18 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 20:25:05 UTC, Mike Bierlee wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:27:05 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
It would generate 2 methods "num": one to set num_ and one to get its value.

It would be great if you could generate @properties instead. I like the more natural way of accessing those instead of getters/setters.

What are properties if not "getters" and "setters"? From the original post: "It would generate 2 methods "num": one to set num_ and one to get its value."

Two methods named "num". No "get" or "set" in sight.

I was under the impression that you could only access methods as if they were fields using the @property attribute. After carefully reading the documentation I see this is not the case (UFCS does this). Still there are some added benefits from using @property to completely threat them as fields. It would be nice if you could add @property to the generated getters/setters.

Yeah, I see, @property seems to bring some additional features. Will think about it. Thanks.

Reply via email to