On 2/3/13 3:50 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, February 03, 2013 03:16:08 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Destroy.
Overall, it looks good. It sounds like it's basically arguing for fully
implementing @property as intended save for the fact that parenless function
calls on normal functions are allowed. And that's pretty much what I've been
arguing for during all of this latest @property debate.
However, one issue that I'm concerned about with regards to properties which
hasn't really been discussed much and which doesn't have a whole lot to do
with how they're declared (but rather the syntax of how they're used) is how
to handle symbol clashes. For instance, if you have the free function
auto prop(int[] arr) {...}
in module a.b.c, and you have
auto prop(int[] arr) {...}
in module a.d.e, how do you deal with code that does
import a.b.c;
import a.d.e;
auto var = arr.prop;
First off, defining a top-level property ought indeed to have an air of
definitive-ness, so this is good. It also illustrates that defining
top-level properties should be rare.
To fix this, no need to add syntax:
import a.b.c;
import a.b.c : prop1 = prop;
import a.d.e;
import a.d.e : prop2 = prop;
auto v1 = arr.prop1; // goes to a.b.c.prop
auto v2 = arr.prop2; // gies to a.d.e.prop
Andrei
