Andrei Alexandrescu escribió:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:53:12 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
But in the case of properties only allowed without parens, functions
require parens, you are defining a rule for the compiler. Think of
the parentheses as an extension of the function name, like punctuation.
But you say no parens means query, parens means action. This is sheer
unchecked convention.
But we already have sheer unchecked convention! I could make a
function called sort that reverses an array.
Of course we do. My point is that there's no need to add gratuitous
mechanisms fostering conventions that go unchecked.
I don't get why it makes any difference to you that the meaning of
parentheses and no parentheses is used by the author of the function.
How is this bad or somehow worse than what we have now? If you don't
trust the author's functions do what they are named for, don't use his
functions and properties.
Well you can trivialize all you want but the matters are different. It's
one thing to have good names, good designs, trusted code etc. and a
whole different thing to define a feature of which entire existence only
serves only an unchecked convention.
Like... ddoc?
