On 2013-01-31 14:50:40 +0000, "Steven Schveighoffer"
<[email protected]> said:
It actually is a bit depressing, we have to reset the clock back to
late 2009 to start over with properties...
I haven't participated in the discussions about properties this time
around because it's pretty obvious to me it's getting nowhere.
It seems to me that nothing can be done at this point in time if we
want to avoid a breakage of almost all current D code. Well, we could
make some compromises, but a compromise is going to complicate things
while solving only some of the issues; few of us will be really
satisfied with such a thing.
By the way I was a big proponent of properties with no semantic
ambiguities back in 2009. I even proposed a getX/setX scheme, which I
still like very much. I'd like to see real properties in D, but I don't
think it's realistic at this point.
And you have to admit that the way D does properties today is both
simple, clever, and appealing. It does have some error-prone
liabilities when it comes to callable types and generic programming
especially, but beside that I do like the design of the thing. It's a
natural extension of UFCS, even though it predates UFCS. Perhaps we
should just call it a day and live with the ambiguities. I don't like
it, but I don't see any viable alternative.
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.ca/
