On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Sjoerd van Leent<[email protected]> wrote: > It appears that there are really different discussions about properties. > There is a discussion about letting properties look and act as much as > fields, and there is a discussion about calling member methods on returning > structs. > > I'd like to seperate these discussions. First, I don't think it is wise to > call a member on a returning struct, because of the expectation that the > underlying object knows about the change. Thus is not true for a struct. > > What I want to talk about is a completely different approach to the a.b.c > problem, and with that I just make my own proposal, that is completely > different from any other, which I call groups. > > Suppose we have a rather big class with many methods and properties, this > could come in handy. My idea is to introduce groups, in some ways similar to > the idea of namespaces. > > class A > { > group bar > { > int foo() > { > return 123; > } > void foo(int i) > { > // do something spectacular > } > } > } > > This could be called as: > > auto o = new A(); > auto i = o.bar.foo; > o.bar.foo = 123; > > Fun thing about groups is that it is much more flexible. For example, basic > and advanced methods can be separated, etc.
Man, it's 2006 all over again! http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/41903.html#N41905 And that thread was about - oh boy - properties. ;)
