On Friday, 8 February 2013 at 21:31:17 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2013 at 18:55:23 UTC, 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.
In writing my article about nested structs, I stumbled upon a
general definition of a property which may be of value here.
"A property is a named set of overloaded operations on a piece
of
data which replaces the appearance of that data in code(™)."
By stumbled I mean I accidentally wrote it without knowing what I
was doing.
