Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Andrei
Alexandrescu<[email protected]> wrote:
The property attribute also has the nice property
(heh) that you can call the property setters and getters either as
properties or as functions (i.e. "r.empty" or "r.empty()").
Basically, the behavior would be *exactly* as it is now, except you'd
have to explicitly state with which functions it would be legal.
I guess I'd rather not have to specify that. I'd do that on all of my
functions that don't take parameters. To me that's syntactic noise and an
unnecessary special case.
Then on this we disagree ;)
I appreciate the asking.
Or is the idea of introducing the 'property' keyword too controversial?
In this case the keyword isn't even the largest aggravation. The largest
aggravation is that everybody is with their hand on the syntactic holster
when they should look into simplifying and unifying, not adding more baroque
adornments for what is really some function calls.
Oh? And what's the solution, then, if you don't like opGet/opSet and
don't want to pull out your syntactic pistol? The status quo? I
think the sheer volume of messages on this subject alone - not only on
these last few threads but over a period of *years* - shows that many
people aren't satisfied with it.
My perception is that there are a few vocal people. The protests have
been historically against the stupid "writeln = 42" which we must get
rid of.
I have a dream.
* Parameterless functions still can be called without "()". People will
realize that it's a prejudice to believe that this impedes code
understanding, and their eyes and wrists will thank them.
* The syntax "foo = bar" is rewritten into "foo(bar)" IF AND ONLY IF the
expression "auto __x = foo, __x = bar" is compilable.
* The non-uniformity regarding parameterless functions returning
parameterless functions is acknowledged but considered minor.
Yum.
Andrei
