On 1/28/13 11:58 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:20:23 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
One interesting fact is that we have evidence at hand. Optional parens
_exist_ today in D, and have for a while. The language has worked.
They haven't been a disaster.
I've seen some issues, but mostly for allowing normal functions as setters.
Agreed (I consider that feature distinct from optional parens).
I would be perfectly fine ONLY defining @property on setters, and
getters where the parentheses are confusing (i.e. getting a
delegate/function pointer/functor).
I would be fine with D CANCELLING @property as long as we had something
like Objective C, where the function form of a setter CANNOT be mistaken
for a normal function. In this case, we would have to live with delegate
properties requiring two sets of parentheses.
But if you get rid of @property and we are back to D1-style properties,
please acknowledge that the abuse of functions as setters is not a good
situation.
Agreed.
Andrei
