Jimbob wrote:
"Kagamin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP5
As namespaces were proposed, a variant of them is in DIP5 now.
Why not just..
class Foo
{
private:
int mx;
public:
int x.opGet() { return mx; }
void x.opSet(int i) { mx = i; }
void x.opInc() { mx++; }
}
or instead...
class Foo
{
private:
int mx;
public:
int x:opGet() { return mx; }
void x:opSet(int i) { mx = i; }
void x:opInc() { mx++; }
}
So that
foo.x++;
Would be compiled as
foo.x.opInc();
In the same way
foo++;
Would is compiled as
foo.opInc();
Nice. Is x.opGet overridable?
This is a trick question hinting at the fact that you'd need to define
that. I presume it's reasonable to say it is, unless people say
final int x.opGet() { ... }
or something. My point is that when you define new syntax you must add a
host of ancillary definitions that reveal how it interacts with the
existing language. This problem is obviated by the lowering approach.
Andrei
