On Friday, 1 February 2013 at 18:34:01 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
I think you are wrong in how you assume a struct works, but not
in your attempt to implement properties. Struct is just not a
key to this formula.
I disagree. It is absolutely the fundamental key to this formula.
Note that many (including myself) consider the overloading of
static to be a *detriment*.
I guess there's certainly a matter of taste involved here. Had
you suggested another keyword, or what had your preferred
suggested syntax looked like?
You are applying struct where none is needed.
The current front accomplishes what you have shown except it
does not require an actual struct instance (as your code does),
and it's far easier to understand and implement than your
method.
What you are trying to do is establish a *namespace* in which
to declare operator overloads. The whole idea that it has to
be a struct is incorrect, it does not need a "struct" wrapper.
I think you are not understanding how a struct is implemented,
and how it's methods are implemented. A struct function
without a 'this' reference is a static struct function.
Nothing different from a standard function, except it is in the
struct *namespace*. I think this is what you really are after,
a separate *namespace*.
I think *that* idea has merit, and should be examined. Drop
the struct, and you are back to the table.
-Steve
I'm sorry we couldn't find common ground here. I can imagine two
camps developing, one with your ideas and one with mine. As far
as a static struct function, how could it get the pointer to its
enclosing struct, which it needs in order operate on the
enclosing struct's data?
