Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Sure. My point is that with using standard method definition syntax
there's no need for even looking over an example.
So people are going to automagically just *know* to stick "opGet_" in front
of the name to make it a property?
It's ONE rule to remember, and it blends perfectly with the rest of the
language. Compare that with the bunch of arbitrary rules that you propose.
PLUS:
* need to remember that get is not followed by ()
1. That's trivial to remember.
No. "Trivial to remember" is far from enough. You need to justify why
there's anything I need to remember in the first place.
2. Ok, so we can stick a () after get.
Ok, so it's an arbitrary rule. Why exactly is it necessary?
* need to remember that set does not take a type like any other function,
just an identifier
set(auto v)
Problem solved.
Yah, "solved" with more arbitrary syntax. I love this.
Plus with both of the above, you're seem to be using arguments against a
specific decicated property syntax as as arguments against dedicated
property syntaxes in general.
* need to remember that there is no () after width
Why in the world would there be? It's not a function.
Well I don't know what it is, so there might as well be some parens in
there. It's all arbitrary after all. Syntax upon syntax upon syntax. Why
do we need it?
This looks like switch all over again :o).
Andrei
