On 1/23/13 5:40 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:14:21 -0500
Andrei Alexandrescu<[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/23/13 1:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Having the *caller* decide whether something is a property or not
makes as much sense as having the caller decide the function's name,
signature and semantics.
No. The caller does get to decide a variety of syntactic aspects of
the invocation.
Yes, but it's unfortunate that includes a part of the syntax that
carries semantic/conceptual implications for something (action or
data) that is already *inherently* determined by writer of the *callee*.
"Semantic" and "conceptual" sound interesting but are a bit out of
context here. We're talking simple syntax here, and in particular an
option available to other languages already.
If anything, that's an issue with template syntax, it has nothing
to do with properties, let alone the beloved practice of abusing
properties for the sake of things that clearly are not properties.
The implied assumption here is that if it doesn't have parens it's a
property. Well it's a function call.
Right, it's a function call. So what in the world do we gain by
allowing the caller to make it look like something it isn't? Nothing.
Never answer your own rhetorical question :o).
Andrei
