Jarrett Billingsley Wrote: > 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. ;)
It's nice to be repetitive and say the same things that should've been implemented in D1 already. :-)
