On Thursday, 28 February 2013 at 02:56:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Additionally, I don't think this is really a problem as it is
asking to break the abstraction, plain and simple. If you need
a function pointer, then it is likely that you shouldn't be
using a property in the first place.
+1. Properties (from what I've seen) are suppose to be
effectively indistinguishable between a field. If you're taking
the address of a property hoping to get the function address,
this is a clear violation of that.
For instance, if I wrote some code like this:
...
auto myFun = &b.front;
...
And I expected to get a function pointer from that, it would be a
clear violation of what ".front" means (or, is intended to
mean...) and it would break on many ranges because many of them
are implemented s.t. front is actually a field.
