On Friday, 8 February 2013 at 21:02:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 2/8/13 2:05 PM, Robert wrote:
Look at the section "No module-level properties". Why not?!
That's a
perfectly valid use of properties. The proposal disallows
module-level
properties, but instead allows:
42.fun = 43;
which reads like: assign 43 to the fun property of 42. We get
this
really obscure feature but disallowing module-level
properties? If that
is not wrong, than I don't know what is.
There would be ambiguities with module level properties. A
property with one argument may be either a setter for a
module-level property or a getter for the property of a
module-level object.
I think this was settled, allowing such property to only be a
getter via UFCS.
