On 02/04/2013 04:24 AM, TommiT wrote:
On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 02:36:41 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/04/2013 03:23 AM, kenji hara wrote:
Unfortunately, I can present a counterexample.
struct S {
static int value;
static @property int foo() { return value; }
static @property void foo(int n) { value = n; }
}
void main() {
int n = S.foo;
S.foo = 1;
}
Should they be disallowed, as like module level properties?
Kenji Hara
Probably. (static essentially means module-level, but in a potentially
nested name space.)
I disagree.
Well, it is what the proposal says.
Static properties can be allowed because they're not
ambiguous. The problem with module-level:
@property void foo(int n) {}
...are the two interpretations of foo as either a setter taking an int
or a getter property of int type. So, one of those interpretations must
be disallowed. But, with static member properties, there aren't multiple
interpretations.
You are right.
