Kagamin wrote:
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?
Properties that return rvalues cannot be fully consistent with fields
anyway. By the change I suggested, false friends that look syntactically
the same but do different things are avoided.
Anyway, I dropped the suggestion due to the array slice example, but I
still think this is a serious problem with D.
Andrei
