On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:46:39 -0400, Dimitar Kolev
<[email protected]> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:59:38 -0400, Dimitar Kolev
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
>> I don't see what advantages this has over other proposals. What is
>> wrong
>> with a.a such that we have to resort to a#a?
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>
> People are crying over compilers not know which is a property and
which
> is not.
At definition time, not usage time. I want the usage to be identical to
fields, otherwise, it's not as seamless. This makes an important
difference for generic code.
What if the compiler just expanding this to well inlining. So a#a = 3
would just means a.a = 3 just that the compiler will have easier time
understanding this.
If you specify a property at definition by doing int#a, then why do you
also need to specify it's a property when calling it? And if it's not
necessary, then your proposal is no different than adding a keyword. On
those merits, it's fine with me if people think int #a is better than
property int a, but I absolutely don't want to have to modify my code to
call properties using a #.
-Steve
