On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:26:43 -0800, Regan Heath <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:29:16 -0000, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/26/13 8:21 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-25 22:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
That's right with the amendment that we're looking for a solution, not
pushing one. Even the title of the thread is a question.
Clearly properties are good to have. In an ideal world we wouldn't
need
a keyword for them and we'd have some simple rules for determining
property status (especially when it comes to writes). If syntactic
help
is necessary, so be it. We want to make the language better, not
worse.
It's always possible to avoid keywords in favor of syntax. Example:
Declaring a getter:
int foo {}
Just as a regular function declaration but without the parentheses.
Declaring a setter:
void foo= (int value) {}
Append an equal sign to the function name.
This is interesting. I wonder how to make it work for UFCS functions
(which _do_ have one argument).
Do the c# thing and use 'this'? i.e.
int foo(this Person p) {}
void foo= (this Person p, int value) {}
R
Yes, C# uses a 'this' argument as it's first parameters to make it an
Extension Method.
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
