I'm not sure if this is a bug, or an anti-pattern, or what, but I ran
into this issue yesterday:
class Base {
int propImpl;
final @property int prop() { return propImpl; }
@property void prop(int newVal) { propImpl = newVal; }
void someMethod() {
auto x = prop; // OK, calls Base.prop()
prop = x; // OK, calls Base.prop(int)
}
}
class Derived : Base {
override @property void prop(int newVal) {
super.prop(newVal);
doSomethingElse(newVal);
}
void someOtherMethod() {
auto x = prop; // NG - compile error ***
auto y = super.prop; // OK, calls Base.prop()
prop = x; // OK, calls Derived.prop()
}
}
Basically, once the derived class overrides the property setter, the
(un-overridden) base class getter somehow becomes shadowed as well, and
references to .prop will cause a compile error saying that Derived.prop
can't be called without parameters.
So, what's going on here? Should this code be accepted? Is this a
compiler / language bug? A deliberate @property limitation? Or just more
evidence @property should be taken out the back and shot?
T
--
This sentence is false.
