On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:23:42 -0400, Bill Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Steven
Schveighoffer<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:40:37 -0400, Walter Bright
<[email protected]> wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Maybe what scares Walter is a whole new syntax for properties.
It doesn't scare me. It's trivial to add more syntax.
It's just that D is complex enough - there needs to be some very good
reasons for adding more syntax that has apparently zero semantic
information
that would be different from the usual function syntax.
OK, so you don't like the idea of adding dedicated properties.
What is *your* solution to forbidding abuses like this:
writefln = "hi";
???
I think his suggestion was the Java-style approach -- special naming
convention for get/set functions:
int opGet_foo() { return foo_; }
void opSet_foo(int foo) { foo_ = foo; }
private:
int foo_;
Really? I got the impression that he does not think properties warrant
any kind of special syntax.
If that's the solution it's ok with me, the only issue is name collision
(as others have mentioned):
int opGet_foo()
int foo;
must be forbidden. This is different from other opX operators since the
true names of those operators cannot be symbols, and therefore could never
have collisions.
-Steve
