Re: DIP4: Properties

[KennyTM~]

Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-07-25 06:10:09 -0400, Michiel Helvensteijn 
<m.helvensteijn.rem...@gmail.com> said:

It's a little better. But there's still ambiguity:

interface I {
    int foo;
    int opSet_foo(int);
}

foo = 5; // which foo is used?

In the other thread, I suggested this, which could aleviate the problem:

    int foo.opGet();        // getter
    void foo.opAssign(int); // setter

with some support from the compiler.

It could even be exteded to support more:

    int foo.opIndex(int); // foo[1];
    void foo.opAddAssign(int); / foo += 1;
    void foo.invert(); // special function attached to property

Basically, all you need to implement properties is not a dedicaced 
"property" syntax, it's a syntax to implement some kind of local 
namespace, and am "opGet" or "opValue" operator for representing the 
local namespace. It could also be expressed like this:

    namespace foo {
        int opGet(); // getter
        void opAssign(int); // setter
        ...
        int opIndex(int); // foo[1];
        void opAddAssign(int); / foo += 1;
        void invert(); // special function attached to property
    }

In both cases, the result would be the same:

    foo = 1; // same as foo.opAssign(1);
    return foo; // same as return foo.opGet();


If property is going to be extended like this, why not just make a 
nested struct. Works even now.