Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: > > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: > > > >>> In contrast with the original example this is not a bug. > >> I think it is to the extent (a) it does nothing (b) the syntactic > >> equivalent code involving fields does something. It's an egregious > >> breakage of consistency because properties were meant to be > >> generalizations of fields in the first place.
> > foo().obj.unlink(); > > foo().obj2().unlink(); > > File does not have an unlink member but I get your point. As I said, > refusing to bind ref to rvalues disables a few valid uses. I am willing > to renounce those few uses. So you deliberately want to break consistency between fields and properties? As I understnd, .obj will be allowed and .obj2 will be disallowed?
