On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:38:04 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/31/13 10:14 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, February 01, 2013 01:01:02 Jesse Phillips wrote:
I think his suggestions need implemented regardless of what we do
with @property. I think Walter just felt this would appease the
pro-property.
Well, it doesn't even come close. For the most part, the pro-@property
folks
want explicit proprties, and that's precisely what Walter is proposing
that we
get rid of.
writeln = "hi" would not compile with Walters suggested changes.
Only because it's variadic. Something like
range.popFrontN = 7;
_would_ compile. And that's just as bad. We need explicit setter
properties in
order to avoid letting assignment work with functions where it makes no
sense
for it to work.
Under some proposals range.popFrontN = 7 would not compile because
there's no corresponding range.popFrontN that yields an int.
I don't think this rule is good enough.
You are inviting strange properties to invade your types, especially with
the advent of UFCS.
-Steve
