On Saturday, 10 August 2013 at 17:48:34 UTC, BLM768 wrote:
On Saturday, 10 August 2013 at 10:29:51 UTC, Stian Pedersen
wrote:
To add to the mess - or maybe suggest a new approach, what
about:
class A
{
int foo();
void foo=(int a);
private foo_;
}
Then a.foo = 42; calls the foo= method. No other conversions
from a=b to a method invocation.
It may be suggested in one of these 46 pages which I haven't
read. And it'll probably break a lot of stuff.
The problem with this approach is that the getter is still
operating under the semantics of a method, but, as a property,
it should be acting like a field. An approach like this would
work:
class A {
Sorry; message got cut off when I tried to insert a tab and then
pressed space with the "Send" button focused.
Continuing...
class A {
@property int foo();
@property void foo=(int a);
//etc.
}
However, it doesn't offer any significant advantage over the
current property syntax other than providing a clearer
distinction between getters and setters, which is only important
when dealing with UFCS, as pointed out in an earlier post.
