On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 14:38:19 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 14:28:30 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 14:09:20 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 14:00:16 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
Returning void instead of int in the example break
assignment chaining a = b = c. Besides, how such implicitly
defined functions may call user defined code (check input
validity, call events, etc.)?
It should not if evaluating the value of (b = c) will call
getter for b.
Why getter and not setter? Expression a = b = c = d should
call getter for d and setter for rest of them. And if c setter
returns void the chain breaks.
"a = b" calls setter
"(a = b)" calls setter first, getter second
"x = b = c" is same as "x = (b = c)" thus calls setter, then
getter and then setter again
I don't know how it is done know, but that is quite logical
C-like approach based on the fact that result of expression (a
= b) is equal to a.
It is not that obvious, as the result of a = b is also equal to b.
