On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:04:11PM -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Saturday, February 09, 2013 00:53:30 Robert wrote: > > Ok. Here finally it is: > > > > http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP26 > > I completely disagree with disallowing UFCS properties. Not only is it > outright required for arrays, but it's currently possible to turn > anything into a range (even types over which you have no control) > simply by defining the functions (including property functions) for it > externally. And you could do the same with most any API required by a > template. If UFCS properties were disallowed, then that would become > impossible for any API which included properties. That's unnecessarily > restrictive. [...]
Yeah, I disagree with disallowing UFCS properties too. That just cripples it so much that a lot of existing @property use cases are invalidated. It feels like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, instead of solving the actual problem. T -- It is of the new things that men tire --- of fashions and proposals and improvements and change. It is the old things that startle and intoxicate. It is the old things that are young. -- G.K. Chesterton
