Steven Schveighoffer Wrote: > 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
Since when is D 2.0 frozen so that we have to take care of old D 2.0 code. This is not an accusation just a reminder. Hope ware not going for the mistakes of C++.
