On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:55:22PM +0100, Dicebot wrote: > On Thursday, 7 February 2013 at 16:35:17 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu > wrote: > >I felt we were getting somewhere. > > > >Andrei > > Both yes and no at the same time. > > Last proposals did a great job addressing different issues regarding > property syntax and I somewhat like them in that sense. But they > miss an important paragraph about what properties are supposed to be > in D semantically, when they should be used and what problems they > try to solve. So far design feels like it is syntax based as opposed > to use case based.
Agreed. I've mostly refrained from participating in the myriad of related threads, because I felt like a lot of it was just bikeshedding over what syntax should/shouldn't be allowed, what this or that syntax should/shouldn't mean, but there wasn't much consideration of *why* we're doing this in the first place, and whether / how the various proposals will get us there. Currently I feel like we're just making a gigantic mountain out of a molehill, whereas more important issues like reviewing Dmitri's std.uni replacement are being overlooked. T -- Valentine's Day: an occasion for florists to reach into the wallets of nominal lovers in dire need of being reminded to profess their hypothetical love for their long-forgotten.
