Bill Baxter 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_;
--bb
For one thing I like that I now get to define empty() for a range and
then call it with r.empty. I'd think it would be a small step backward
if I had to define get_empty() or something instead.
Andrei
