Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > "Walter Bright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> bool empty { ... }
> >> void empty=(bool b) { ... }
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > I think that if D starts to make a habit of aping the ugly C++ approach to
> > adding new features (as this does), then we may as well just use C++.
>
> Let's not forget that C++ got very conservative about adding keywords
> after a keyword spree (class that is essentially same as struct,
> namespace, xyz_cast, oh yes typename, and, or, not plus other useful
> names that I probably forgot). We don't want to get there.
>
>
> Andrei
I understand your point of view, but I am afraid that using an awkward syntax
makes things difficult to understand. However, I could certainly live with the
current proposal. But this has to do that I'm not afraid of symbolic ways to
achieve something. Others might find it more difficult.
I think that a setter and a getter are two different things, but I would avoid
to have an inconsistent property, such as setting an int and getting a bool, or
something similar. Perhaps a compiler check could intercept?
But I think I can do it with the keywords that we already have in our
possession:
bool in empty
{
}
bool out empty
{
}
Although perhaps this could be argued against, as in and out are used for
contract programming. But this clearly is a different use.
