On 5/17/16 1:36 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 17.05.2016 16:24, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
But of course, if I want to know what type the expression x.foo will
yield, I have to do the above.
typeof((()=>x.foo)())
Well, that is likely a valid solution for implementation of
PropertyType, but I'd never want to have to type that wherever I wanted
the property return type :)
(Arguably, function types should not even exist and typeof(x.foo) should
give you what you want.)
Yes, absolutely. I'm not sure if that's fixable at this point, however.
-Steve
