On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:26:03 -0500, Chad Joan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/05/2013 09:45 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
...
The semantic rewrite stuff is something I don't feel strongly either
way. It would be nice, but at the same time, it doesn't feel necessary
to me. One can always simply avoid it by not using the operators on
properties.
A core feature of properties is that variables can be migrated to them
(and back) without breaking any of the caller's code. Forbidding more
than half of D's operators on them will definitely break this attribute.
I find this explanation lacking. A field supports operations that are
impossible to implement with properties, there will never be a
non-code-breaking change from a field to a property. So it's a matter of
"how much" breakage you want to allow. This is really a judgment call,
there is no "right" answer. The closest you can get to a field is to ref
an actual field. But in that case, I don't see the point of the property,
since you give unfettered access to the field!
The whole point of having properties that I see is to implement things you
CAN'T implement with a field, or are more cumbersome. Like read-only
fields. Such a change would necessarily and on purpose break code.
-Steve
