On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 06:07:51 -0000, deadalnix <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 20/11/2012 12:18, Timon Gehr a écrit :
On 11/20/2012 02:49 PM, Regan Heath wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:26:15 -0000, Adam D. Ruppe
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 at 12:44:44 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Should this be allowed for functions that isn't marked with
@property:
foo = 3;
Yes. We should *only* be changing the way @property is implemented.
(Namely, actually implementing it!)
Don't want to break existing code. The new changes must be opt in.
Usually I'd agree but this is a case of a wart we should just remove
IMO. The fix for breaking cases is simple, add @property.
If there's both an @property setter and a regular function, the
property should be used here.
Agreed. But it's waay clearer whats going on if @property is required
to call functions using this syntax.
R
Not really.
@property T front(T)(T[] arr) { return arr[0]; }
[1,2,3,4].front;
front = [1,2,3,4];
I conclude that @property should be limited to member function or UFCS
calls. Otherwize, we get really weird stuffs going on.
Such was my assumption in this case :p
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
