On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 16:47:56 UTC, mist wrote:
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 16:29:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
So you DO make a difference between setters and getters.
Yes, sure. But I do not need new keywords for that.
Because you invalidate most legitimate use of a setter.
funName(t) is valid if funName returns a delegate. The
compiler shouldn't even try to interpret funName(...) as a
call of funName.
Yes, I have finally understood how it is intended to work. I
just do not like complexity with re-writing funName(t) as
funName()(t) and hidden struct creation from function symbols.
I cheer any compiling restrictions, but overall type system
should be as transparent as possible for normal cases. Like
brutal simplicity of my proposal better :)
A struct with a function pointer and data already exists in D.
This is called a delegate.
But it is an interesting approach, thank you for the insight.
