On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 at 16:47:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 4/8/15 2:24 AM, Idan Arye wrote:
At the very least, put () after the writelne:
No. -- Andrei
Why not? The property syntax's purpose is to create... well...
properties. Give you the illusion that you are reading and
writing member fields when you are actually calling functions.
`names.reverse` is OK, because you can imagine that `names` has a
member field called `reverse` that holds it reversed(this is not
really true because `names.reverse` is mutating the original
array, but the point is that we are not calling `reverse` for
it's side - we are only interested in it's return value).
`names.reverse.writeln;` - not so much. We are not treating
`writeln` as a property - we don't really care what it returns -
we treat it as a method, and therefore it should use the method
call syntax.
In matter of fact - if `writeln` was a member field - the very
same thing the combination of UFCS and property syntax is trying
to emulate - this code wouldn't compile:
struct Foo {
string writeln;
}
struct Bar {
Foo reverse;
}
void main() {
Bar names;
names.reverse.writeln;
}
source/app.d(10): Error: dotvar has no effect in expression
(names.reverse.writeln)
