On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 01:35:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I believe that the way that this sort of enhancement has
typically been
suggested is to do something like
public @property int value;
which would be lowered to something like
public @property int value() @safe const pure nothrow { return
_value; }
public @property int value(int v) @safe pure nothrow { return
_value = v; }
private int _value;
- Jonathan M Davis
As someone who uses properties almost everywhere, and almost
never uses public fields, this is one of my biggest gripes with D
remaining. It's incredibly annoying to have to do things like
private int _width;
/// Gets or sets the total width, in pixels, of this control.
@property int width() const {
return _width;
}
/// ditto
@property void width(int value) {
this._width = value;
}
Something like
/// Gets or sets the total width, in pixels, of this control.
@property const int width;
Is just so much nicer and saves so much bloat. I feel like the
current property syntax is one of those places where IDE code
snippets will start to become, not necessary, but extremely
useful. It's the type of manual repetition that D aims to avoid,
but in this case fails at.
I don't know if I agree with automatically expanding to const
though. I'd like to be able to do '@property Control parent'
without needing to return a const(Control) because the property
is expanded to be const. Although if we had a virtual keyword,
final is something that I think should be default for properties,
and I think it's a mistake that the current @property doesn't
infer final in the first place. Safe and nothrow are two
assumptions that are probably quite safe to assume for the most
part as well.
