On Tue, 19 May 2009 10:12:13 -0400, Leandro Lucarella <[email protected]>
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer, el 19 de mayo a las 09:54 me escribiste:
>So for me, properties are way more than just syntax sugar.
AFAIK, this is not enforced by the compiler...
I write C# properties that have side effects.
Well, in D2 it would make sense to make mandatory that properties are
pure
=)
I think the actual syntax is really nice and simple, the only thing
missing is a way to declare that you expect some function to be
a property.
Something like this should be enough for me:
class C
{
int no_prop() { return 1; }
property int prop() { return 2; }
}
C c = new C;
int x = c.no_prop; // error
x = x.prop; // ok
"property" should imply "pure".
As Jarrett said, a pure setter is impossible. But, having pure getters
even seems like an unnecessary limitation.
Having setting and getting grouped together would be nice to me (for
documentation/lookup reasons), but not necessary. As long as there's a
way to denote "property" versus "function", the scheme works.
-Steve
