John C Wrote:
> Sjoerd van Leent wrote:
> > 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.
>
> in and out are also used for function parameters, remember.
Yes, but does this create a conflict in this case? It is clearly syntactically
different from a function parameter. Perhaps we could also do something like:
bool(in) empty
{
... = __in;
}
bool(out) empty
{
return ...;
}
I am just trying to think of a variety of possible options. Perhaps for indexes
we could use:
bool(in) empty(int index)
{
...[index] = __in;
}
bool(out) empty(int index)
{
return ...[index];
}
Just a few thoughts.
